-■•.•?•,•'  - 


m^3 


MH 


WW- 


-^ 


* 

^%^ 

Wm^ 


tihxavy  of  ^he  t:heolo0ical  ^^mimvy 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


•3^I> 


4-    -.yc|^ 


IN    UNIFORM   BINDING 


THE    UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS 

By  WILLIAM    HENRY   GREEN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of   Oriental  and  Old  Testannent   Literature  in 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary 

8vo.   $3.00 


THE   HIGHER  CEITIOISM  OF 
THE  PENTATEUCH 


THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF 
THE  PENTATEUCH/^^, 

JAN    3  1949 


OGmi  stH^ 


BY 


WILLIAM   HENRY   GEEEN,   D.D.,  LL.D. 

PBOFESSOR    OP    ORIENTAL    AND    OLD    TESTAMENT    LITERATURE    IN    PRINCETON 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1906 


Copyright,  1895,  by 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 


TROW    DIRECTORY 

PRIN-INQ  AND   BOOKBINDINQ  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK 


PREFACE 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  been  of  late  so  associated 
with  extravagant  theorizing,  and  with  insidious  attacks 
upon  the  genuineness  and  credibility  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible  that  the  very  term  has  become  an  offence  to  seri- 
ous minds.  It  has  come  to  be  considered  one  cf  the 
most  dangerous  forms  of  infidelity,  and  in  its  very  nature 
hostile  to  revealed  truth.  And  it  must  be  confessed  that 
in  the  hands  of  those  who  are  unfiiendly  to  supernatural 
religion  it  has  proved  a  potent  weapon  in  the  interest  of 
unbelief.  Nor  has  the  use  made  of  it  by  those  who, 
while  claiming  to  be  evangelical  critics,  accept  and  de- 
fend the  revolutionary  conclusions  of  the  antisupernatur- 
alists,  tended  to  remove  the  discredit  into  which  it  has 
fallen. 

!  This  is  not  the  fault  of  the  Higher  Criticism  in  its 
genuine  sense,  however,  but  of  its  perversion.  Prop- 
erly speaking  it  is  an  inquiry  into  the  origin  and  char- 
acter of  the  writings  to  which  it  is  applied.  It  seeks  to 
ascertain  by  all  available  means  the  authors  by  whom, 
the  time  at  which,  the  circumstances  under  which,  and 
the  design  with  which  they  were  produced.  Such  inves- 
tigations, rightly  conducted,  must  prove  a  most  important 
aid  to  the  understanding  and  just  appreciation  of  the 
writings  in  question. 

The  books  of  the  Bible  have  nothing  to  fear  from  such 
investigations,  however  searching  and  thorough,  and  how- 
ever fearlessly  piu'sued.  They  can  only  result  in  estab- 
lishing more  firmly  the  truth  of  the  claims,  which  the 


VI  PREFACE 

Bible  makes  for  itself,  in  every  particular.  The  Bible 
stands  npon  a  rock  from  which  it  can  never  be  dislodged. 

The  genuineness  and  historical  truth  of  the  Books  of 
Moses  have  been  strenuously  impugned  in  the  name  of 
the  Higher  Criticism.  It  has  been  claimed  as  one  of  its 
most  certain  results,  scientifically  established,  that  they 
have  been  falsely  ascribed  to  Moses,  and  were  in  reality 
produced  at  a  much  later  period.  It  is  affirmed  that  the 
history  is  by  no  means  reliable  and  merely  records  the 
uncertain  and  variant  traditions  of  a  post-Mosaic  age  ; 
and  that  the  laws  are  not  those  of  Moses,  but  the  growth 
of  centuries  after  his  time.  All  this  is  demonstrably 
based  on  false  and  sophistical  reasoning,  which  rests  on 
unfounded  assumptions  and  employs  weak  and  inconclu- 
sive arguments. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  volume  to  show,  as  briefly  and 
compactly  as  possible,  that  the  faith  of  all  past  ages  in 
respect  to  the  Pentateuch  has  not  been  mistaken.  It  is 
what  it  claims  to  be,  and  what  it  has  always  been  be- 
lieved to  be.  In  the  first  chapter  it  is  exhibited  in  its 
relation  to  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole,  of  which  it  is 
not  only  the  initial  portion,  but  the  basis  or  foundation 
upon  which  the  entire  superstructure  reposes  ;  or  rather, 
it  contains  the  germs  from  which  all  that  follows  was 
developed.  In  the  second,  the  plan  and  contents  of  the 
Pentateuch  are  unfolded.  It  has  one  theme,  which  is 
consistently  adhered  to,  and  which  is  treated  with  or- 
derly arrangement  and  upon  a  carefully  considered  plan 
suggestive  of  a  single  author.  In  the  third  it  is  shown 
by  a  variety  of  arguments,  both  external  and  internal, 
that  this  author  was  Moses.  The  various  forms  of  oppo- 
sition to  this  conclusion  are  then  outlined  and  separately 
considered.  First,  the  weakness  of  the  earlier  objections 
from  anachronisms  and  inconsistencies  is  shown.  In  the 
fourth  chapter  the  divisive  hypotheses,  which  have  in 


PREFACE  vil 

succession  been  maintained  in  opposition  to  the  unity  of 
the  Pentateuch,  are  reviewed  and  shown  to  be  baseless, 
and  the  arguments  urged  in  their  support  are  refuted. 
In  the  fifth  chapter  the  genuineness  of  the  laws  is  de- 
fended against  the  development  hypothesis.  And  in  the 
sixth  and  last  chapter  these  hypotheses  are  shown  to  be 
radically  unbiblical.  They  are  hostile  alike  to  the  truth 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  to  the  supernatural  revelation 
which  it  contains. 

Princeton,  N.  J. ,  August  1,  1895. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 
I 

PAOB 

The  Old  Testament  and  its  Structure, 1 

The  Old  Testament  addressed  in  the  first  instance  to  Israel 
and  in  the  language  of  that  people ;  the  New  Testament  to 
all  mankind  and  in  the  language  of  the  civilized  world.  The 
former  composed  by  many  writers  in  the  course  of  a  thousand 
years,  1 ;  not  an  aggregate  of  detached  productions,  but  pos- 
sessed of  an  organic  structure,  2  ;  of  which  each  book  is  a 
constituent  element,  3,  with  its  special  function.  The  three- 
fold division  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  4,  resting  on  the  official 
position  of  the  writers,  5.  The  Lamentations  an  apparent  ex- 
ception, 6.  Two  methods  of  investigating  organic  structure, 
7.  First,  trace  from  the  beginning.  The  Pentateuch,  histor- 
ical, poetical,  8,  and  prophetical  books,  9.  Second,  survey 
from  the  end,  viz.,  Christ ;  advantages  of  this  method,  10. 
Predictive  periods,  negative  and  positive  ;  division  of  the  Old 
Testament  thence  resulting,  11-13.  Two  modes  of  division 
compared,  14.  General  relation  of  the  three  principal  sec- 
tions, 15-17. 

U 

The  Plan  and  Contents  op  the  Pentateuch, 18 

Names  of  the  books  of  Moses,  origin  of  the  fivefold  divis- 
ion, 18,  Theme  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  two  parts,  historical  and 
legal,  19  ;  preliminary  portion,  20  ;  its  negative  and  positive 
aim,  21.  Creation  to  the  Flood,  primeval  holiness  and  the 
fall  ;  salvation  and  perdition  ;  segregation,  22  ;  divine  insti- 
tutions. The  Flood  to  Abraham,  23.  Call  of  Abraham.  Two 
stages  in  the  development  of  Israel.  The  family  ;  Abraham, 
Isaac,  Jacob,  24.  The  nation  ;  negative  and  positive  prepa- 
ration for  the  exodus  ;  the  march  to  Sinai.  The  legislation  ; 
at  Sinai  25,  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  in  the  plains  of  Moab, 
2&-28;  one  theme,  definite  plan,  continuous  history,  29,  sug- 
gestive of  a  single  writer.     Tabular  view,  30. 


X  CONTENTS 

III 

PAQR 

Moses  the  Author  of  the  Pentateuch, 31 

Importance  of  the  Pentateuch,  31.  Mosaic  authorship  as 
related  to  credibility.  (1)  Traditional  opinion  among  the 
Jews ;  testimony  of  the  New  Testament,  32,  not  mere  accom- 
modation to  prevailing  sentiment.  (2)  Testimony  of  the  Old 
Testament,  33-35.  (3)  Declarations  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant ;  the  Priest  code ;  the  Deuteronomic 
code,  36 ;  two  historical  passages  ascribed  to  Moses,  which 
imply  much  more,  37,  38  ;  intimate  relation  of  the  history  to 
the  legislation.  (4)  The  language  of  the  laws  points  to  the 
Mosaic  period,  39,  40  ;  indicates  that  they  were  written  then. 
Moses's  farewell  addresses,  song  and  blessing,  41.  The  laws 
could  not  be  forged ;  locality  of  these  enactments.  (5)  The  Pen- 
tateuch alluded  to  or  its  existence  implied  in  the  subsequent 
books  of  the  Bible,  42.  (6)  Known  and  its  authority  admitted 
in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  43  ;  no  valid  argument  from 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  44  ;  proof  from  the  history  of  the 
schism  and  the  books  of  the  prophets.  (7)  Elementary  char- 
acter of  its  teachings.  (8)  Egyptian  words  and  allusions,  45. 
Assaults  in  four  distinct  lines,  46.  The  earliest  objections ; 
ancient  heretics  ;  Jerome  misinterpreted  ;  Isaac  ben  Jasos ; 
Aben  Ezra,  47  ;  Peyrerius  ;  Spinoza ;  Hobbes  ;  Richard 
Simon,  48  ;  Le  Clerc  ;  answered  by  "Witsius  and  Carpzov,  49. 
The  alleged  anachronisms  and  other  objections  of  no  account, 
50,  51.  Note :  Testimony  of  Judges,  Ruth,  1  Samuel,  52 ;  2 
Samuel,  Kings,  53 ;  Joel,  Isaiah,  54  ;  Micah,  Jeremiah,  55 ; 
Psalms.  Allusions  in  Hosea  and  Amos  to  the  facts  of  the 
Pentateuch,  56  ;  to  its  laws,  57  ;  coincidences  of  thought  or 
expression,  58. 

IV 

The  Unity  of  the  Pentateuch, 5S 

Meaning  of  unity,  59 ;  illustration  from  Bancroft ;  the 
Gospels,  60.  The  Document  Hypothesis  ;  Vitringa,  61 ;  As- 
true,  Eichhorn,  Gramberg,  62.  (1)  Elohim  and  Jehovah,  63. 
(2)  Each  class  of  sections  continuous.  (3)  Parallel  passages, 
64.  (4)  Diversity  of  diction  and  ideas,  65,  66.  At  first  con- 
fined to  Genesis  ;  not  conflict  with  Mosaic  authorship  until 
extended  to  the  entire  Pentateuch,  67 ;  even  then  not  neces- 


CONTENTS  2d 

sarily,  unless  the  documents  are  post-Mosaic  ;  Ex.  vi.  3,  68. 
Jehovist  suspected  of  anachronisms,  inaccuracies,  and  contra- 
dictions, 69  ;  inferred  from  parallel  passages,  70.     Fragment 
Hypothesis,   Vater,    Hartmann,    71 ;    supported    by  similar 
arguments,  73  ;  the  Document  Hypothesis  reacting  against  it- 
self, 73  ;  titles  and  subscriptions,  74.     But  (1)  The  extensive 
literature  assumed.     (2)  The  continuity  and  orderly  arrange- 
ment of  the  Pentateuch,  75.     (3)  The  numerous  cross  ref- 
erences.    Refuted  by  Ewald  and  F.  H.  Ranke.     Supplement 
Hypothesis,  Bleek,  Tuch,  Stahelin,  De  Wette,  Knobel,  76,  77. 
This  accounts  for  certain    evidences  of  unity  but  not  for 
others.     Inconsistent  relation  of  the  Jehovist  to  the  Elohist, 
78,  79  ;  attempted  explanations  destructive  of  the  hypothesis, 
80.   Refuted  by  Kurtz,  Drechsler,  Havernick,  Keil,  Hengsten- 
berg,  Welte.     Crystallization  Hypothesis  of  Ev^^ald,  81,  83. 
Modified  Document  Hypothesis  of  Hupfeld  ;  Ilgen,  Boehmer, 
Schrader,  83,  83.     But  (1)  The  second  Elohist  destroys  the 
continuity  of  the  first.    (3)  The  first  Elohist  almost  ceases  soon 
after  Gen.  xx.  where  the  second  begins,  84.     (3)  Intricate 
blending  of  Jehovist  and  second  Elohist.     (4)  First  Elohist 
alleged  to  be  clearly  distinguishable  ;  without  force  as  an  ar- 
gument, 85.     (5)  Capricious  and  inconsistent  conduct  attrib- 
uted to  the  redactor,  86  ;  undermines  the  hypothesis.     Bur- 
densome  complexity  inevitable,  87.     Critical  symbols.     The 
grounds  of  literary  partition  considered,  88.     I.  The  divine 
names ;  their  alternation  not  coincident  with  successive  sec- 
tions, 89 ;  this  fundamental  criterion  annulled  by  unsettling     / 
the  text,  90.     Elohim  in  J  sections  ;  Jehovah  in  P  and  E     ' 
sections,   91.     Examples  given,  93-98.     Ex.   vi.   2,  3,   99. 
Misinterpretation  corrected,  100.     Not  written  with  an  anti- 
quarian design;   neither  was  the   patriarchal  history,    101. 
Gen.  iv.  36.    Signification  and  usage  of  Elohim  and  Jehovah, 
103,  103.    Hengstenberg's  theory,  103,  104.     That  of  Kurtz, 
105.    Liberty  in  the  use  of  the  divine  names.    II.  Continuity 
of  sections,  106.     But  (1)  numerous  chasms  and  abrupt  tran- 
sitions, 107.    (3)  Bridged  by  scattered  clauses.    (3)  Apparent 
connection  factitious,  108.     (4)  Interrelation  of  documents. 
(5)  Inconsistency  of  critics.     III.  Parallel  passages.     But  (1) 
Often  not  real  parallels,  109.     (3)  Repetition  accounted  for, 
110.     (3)  Summary  statement  followed  by  particulars,  111. 
(4)  Alleged  doublets,  113.      IV.   Diversity  of  diction   and 
ideas.     But  (1)  Reasoning  in  a  circle,  113.    (3)  Proofs  facti- 
tious, 114.  (3)  Synonyms,  115.     (4)  Criteria  conflict.     (5)  An 
indeterminate  equation,  116.     (6)  Growing  complexity,  117. 


XU  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Arguments  insuflScient,  118.  Partition  of  the  parables  of  the 
Prodigal  Son,  119-122,  and  the  Good  Samaritan,  122-124. 
Romans  Dissected  ;  add/tional  incongruities,  125,  126  ;  mar- 
vellous perspicacity  of  the  critics,  126,  127  ;  critical  assault 
upon  Cicero's  orations  and  other  classical  productions,  127 
and  128,  129  note  ;  Prologue  of  Faust,  130  ;  agreement  of 
critics,  130,  131 ;  Partition  Hypothesis  a  failure,  but  the  labor 
spent  upon  it  not  altogether  fruitless,  132,  133. 


Genuineness  of  the  Laws, 134 

Critical  revolution,  134  ;  diversities  of  literary  critics,  two 
points  of  agreement,  135  ;  Development  Hypothesis,  136, 137  ; 
its  fallacy,  138  ;  dates  assigned  to  the  several  codes,  139,  140  ; 
Graf,  140  ;  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  141  ;  works  for  and  against, 
note  141-143  ;  Supplement  Hypothesis  overthrown,  142, 143  ; 
Scriptural  statements  vindicated,  144-146  ;  no  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  codes,  147-149  ;  alleged  violations  of  the  law,  150, 
in  respect  to  the  place  of  sacrifice  and  the  priesthood,  151, 
152  ;  Ignorance  of  the  law,  153  ;  the  laws  of  Charlemagne, 
154 ;  Deuteronomy,  the  Priest  Code,  155  ;  incongruities  of 
the  hypothesis,  156. 

VI 

The  Bearing  op  the  Divisive  Criticism  on  the  Credibil* 
iTY  OP  the  Pentateuch  and  on  Supernatural  Relig' 
ion, .57 

Partition  Hypotheses  elaborated  in  the  interest  of  unbelief, 
157  ;  credibility  undermined  ;  not  a  question  of  inerrancy, 
but  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  history,  158  ;  facts  only 
elicited  by  a  critical  process  ;  incompleteness  of  the  docu- 
ments ;  work  of  the  redactors,  159,  160  ;  effect  upon  the 
truthfulness  of  the  Pentateuch,  161,  162  ;  the  real  issue ;  un- 
friendly to  revealed  religion,  163  ;  in  both  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testament,  164  ;  the  religion  of  the  Bible  based  on  his- 
torical facts  ;  revelations,  predictions,  and  miracles  discred- 
ited by  the  authors  of  these  hypotheses,  165,  166  ;  Mosaic  or 
contemporary  authorship  denied,  167  ;  falsity  of  the  docu- 
ments assumed,  168  ;  they  represent  discordant  traditions  ; 
Scripture  cannot  be  broken  ;  criticism  largely  subjective,  169  ; 


CONTENTS  xiii 

errors  of  redactors,  170 ;  no  limit  to  partition,  171  ;  deism, 
rationalism,  divisive  criticism  ;  literary  attractions  of  the 
Bible,  172 ;  the  supernatural  eliminated,  173  ;  deism,  174  ; 
rationalistic  exegesis,  174,  175  ;  method  of  higher  criticism 
most  plausible  and  effective,  176  ;  hazardous  experiment  of 
the  so-called  evangelical  critics,  177. 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF 
THE  PENTATEUCH 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  ITS  STRUCTUEE 

The  Old  Testament  is  the  volume  of  God's  written 
revelation  prior  to  the  advent  of  Christ.  Its  complement 
is  the  New  Testament,  which  is  God's  written  revelation 
since  the  advent  of  Christ.  The  former  being  immedi- 
ately addressed  to  the  people  of  Israel  was  written  in  the 
language  of  that  people,  and  hence  for  the  most  part  in 
Hebrew,  a  few  chapters  in  Daniel  and  Ezra  and  a  verse  in 
Jeremiah  being  in  the  Jewish  Aramean,^  when  the  lan- 
guage was  in  its  transition  state.  This  earlier  dispensa- 
tion, which  for  a  temporary  purpose  was  restricted  to  a 
single  people  and  a  limited  territory,  was,  however,  pre- 
paratory to  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,  in 
which  God's  word  was  to  be  carried  everywhere  and 
preached  to  every  creature.  Accordingly  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  written  in  Greek,  which  was  then  the  language 
of  the  civilized  world. 

The  Old  Testament  was  composed  by  many  distinct 
writers,  at  many  different  times  and  in  many  separate 
portions,  through  a  period  of  more  than  a  thousand  years 
from  Moses  to  Malachi.     It  is  not,  however,  an  aggre- 

'  Jer.  X.  11 ;  Dan.  ii,  4-vii,  28;  Ezra  iv.  7-vi.  18,  vii.  12-26  are  in 
Aramean, 

1 


2       THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

gate  of  detached  productions  without  order  or  method, 
as  the  seemingly  casual  circumstances  connected  with  the 
origin  of  its  several  parts  might  tempt  some  to  imagine. 
Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  are  the  additions  made  from  time 
to  time  of  a  uniform  pattern,  as  though  the  separate  value 
of  each  new  revelation  consisted  merely  in  the  fact  that 
an  increment  was  thereby  made  to  the  body  of  divine 
truth  previously  imparted.  Upon  the  lowest  view  that 
can  possibly  be  taken  of  this  volume,  if  it  were  simply 
the  record  of  the  successive  stages  of  the  development  of 
the  Hebrew  mind,  it  might  be  expected  to  possess  an 
organic  structure  and  to  exhibit  a  gradually  unfolding 
scheme,  as  art,  philosophy,  and  literature  among  every 
people  have  each  its  characteristics  and  laws,  which  gov- 
ern its  progress  and  determine  the  measure  and  direction 
of  its  growth.  But  rightly  viewed  as  the  word  of  God, 
communicated  to  men  for  his  own  wise  and  holy  ends,  it 
may  with  still  greater  confidence  be  assumed  that  the 
order  and  symmetry  which  characterize  all  the  works  of 
the  Most  High,  will  be  visible  here  likewise ;  that  the 
divine  skill  and  intelligence  will  be  conspicuous  in  the 
method  as  well  as  in  the  matter  of  his  disclosures  ;  and 
that  these  will  be  found  to  be  possessed  of  a  structural 
arrangement  in  which  all  the  parts  are  wisely  disposed, 
and  stand  in  clearly  defined  mutual  relations. 

The  Old  Testament  is  a  product  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
wrought  out  through  the  instrumentality  of  many  human 
agents,  who  were  all  inspired  by  him,  directed  by  him, 
and  adapted  by  him  to  the  accomplishment  of  his  own 
fixed  end.  Here  is  that  unity  in  multiplicity,  that  single- 
ness of  aim  with  diversity  of  operations,  that  binding  to- 
gether of  separate  activities  under  one  superior  and  con- 
trolling influence,  which  guides  all  to  the  accomplishment 
of  a  predetermined  purpose,  and  allots  to  each  its  par- 
ticular function  in  reference  to  it,  which  is  the  very  con- 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   AND   ITS    STRUCTURE  3 

ception  of  a  well-arranged  organism.  There  is  a  divine 
reason  why  every  part  is  what  it  is  and  where  it  is ;  why 
God  spake  unto  the  fathers  at  precisely  those  sundry 
times  and  in  just  those  divers  portions,  in  which  he 
actually  revealed  his  will.  And  though  this  may  not  in 
every  instance  be  ascertainable  by  us,  yet  careful  and 
reverent  study  will  disclose  it  not  only  in  its  general  out- 
lines, but  also  in  a  multitude  of  its  minor  details ;  and 
will  show  that  the  transpositions  and  alterations,  which 
have  been  proposed  as  improvements,  are  dislocations 
and  disfigurements,  which  mar  and  deface  the  well-pro- 
portioned whole. 

In  looking  for  the  evidences  of  an  organic  structure  in 
the  Scriptures,  according  to  which  all  its  parts  are  dis- 
posed in  harmonious  unity,  and  each  part  stands  in  a 
definite  and  intelligible  relation  to  every  other,  as  well  as 
to  the  grand  design  of  the  whole,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
group  and  classify  the  particulars,  or  the  student  will  lose 
himself  in  the  multiplicity  of  details,  and  never  rise  to 
any  clear  conception  of  the  whole.  Every  fact,  every 
institution,  every  person,  every  doctrine,  every  utterance 
of  the  Bible  has  its  place  and  its  function  in  the  general 
plan.  And  the  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  any  scheme 
proposed  as  the  plan  of  the  Scriptures  will  lie  mainly  in 
its  harmonizing  throughout  with  all  these  details,  giving 
a  rational  and  satisfactory  account  of  the  purpose  and 
design  of  each  and  assigning  to  all  their  just  place  and 
relations.  But  if  one  were  to  occupy  himself  with  these 
details  in  the  first  instance,  he  would  be  distracted  and 
confused  by  their  multitude,  without  the  possibility  of 
arriving  thus  at  any  clear  or  satisfactory  result. 

The  first  important  aid  in  the  process  of  grouping  or 
classification  is  afforded  by  the  separate  books  of  which 
the  Scriptures  are  composed.  These  are  not  arbitrary  or 
fortuitous  divisions  of  the  sacred  text :  but  their  form, 


4       THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

dimensions,  and  contents  liave  been  divinely  determined. 
Each  represents  the  special  task  allotted  to  one  partic- 
ular organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  either  the  entire  function 
assigned  to  him  in  the  general  plan,  or,  in  the  case  where 
the  same  inspired  penman  wrote  more  than  one  book 
of  different  characters  and  belonging  to  different  classes, 
his  function  in  one  given  sphere  or  direction.  Thus  the 
books  of  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Malachi  exhibit  to  us  that 
part  in  the  plan  of  divine  revelation  which  each  of  those 
distinguished  servants  of  God  was  commissioned  to  per- 
form. The  book  of  Psalms  represents  the  task  allotted 
to  David  and  the  other  inspired  writers  of  song  in  the 
instruction  and  edification  of  the  people  of  God.  The 
books  of  Moses  may  be  said  to  have  led  the  way  in 
every  branch  of  sacred  composition,  in  history  (Genesis), 
in  legislation  (Leviticus),  in  oratorical  and  prophetic 
discourse  (Deuteronomy),  in  poetry  (Ex.  xv.,  Dt.  xxxii., 
xxxiii.),  and  they  severally  set  forth  what  he  was  en- 
gaged to  accomplish  in  each  of  these  different  directions. 
The  books  of  Scripture  thus  having  each  an  individual 
character  and  this  stamped  with  divine  authority  as  an 
element  of  fitness  for  their  particular  place  and  function, 
must  be  regarded  as  organic  parts  of  the  whole. 

The  next  step  in  our  inquiry  is  to  classify  and  arrange 
the  books  themselves.  Every  distribution  is  not  a  true 
classification,  as  a  mechanical  division  of  an  animal  body 
is  not  a  dissection,  and  every  classification  will  not  ex- 
hibit the  organic  structure  of  which  we  are  in  quest. 
The  books  of  the  Bible  may  be  variously  divided  with 
respect  to  matters  merely  extraneous  and  contingent, 
and  which  stand  in  no  relation  to  the  true  principle  of 
its  construction. 

Thus,  for  example,  the  current  division  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible  is  into  three  parts,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and 
the  K'thubhim  or  Hagiographa.     This  distribution  rests 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   AND   ITS   STRUCTUKE  O 

upon  the  official  standing  of  the  writers.  The  writings 
of  Moses,  the  great  lawgiver  and  mediator  of  God's  cove- 
nant with  Israel,  whose  position  in  the  theocracy  was 
altogether  unique,  stand  first.  Then  follow  the  writings 
of  the  prophets,  that  is  to  say,  of  those  invested  with  the 
prophetical  office.  Some  of  these  writings,  the  so-called 
former  prophets — Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings — 
are  historical ;  the  others  are  prophetical,  viz.,  those  de- 
nominated the  latter  prophets — Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
and  the  twelve  minor  prophets  so  called,  not  as  though 
of  inferior  authority,  but  solely  because  of  the  brevity  of 
thek  books.  Their  position  in  this  second  division  of 
the  canon  is  due  not  to  the  nature  of  their  contents  but 
to  the  fact  that  their  writers  were  prophets  in  the  strict 
and  official  sense.  Last  of  all  those  books  occupy  the 
third  place  which  were  written  by  inspired  men  who 
w^ere  not  in  the  technical  or  official  sense  prophets. 
Thus  the  Avritings  of  David  and  Solomon,  though  inspired 
as  truly  as  those  of  the  prophets,  are  assigned  to  the 
third  division  of  the  canon,  because  their  authors  were 
not  prophets  but  kings.  So,  too,  the  book  of  Daniel  be- 
longs in  this  third  di^dsion,  because  its  author,  though 
possessing  the  gift  of  prophecy  in  an  eminent  degree,  and 
uttering  prophecies  of  the  most  remarkable  character, 
and  hence  called  a  prophet,  Mat.  xxiv.  15,  in  the  same 
general  sense  as  David  is  in  Acts  ii.  30,  nevertheless  did 
not  exercise  the  prophetic  office.  He  was  not  engaged  in 
laboring  with  the  people  for  their  spiritual  good  as  his 
contemporary  and  fellow- captive  Ezekiel.  He  had  an 
entirely  different  office  to  perform  on  their  behalf  in  the 
distinguished  position  which  he  occupied  at  the  court  of 
Babylon  and  then  of  Persia.  The  books  of  Chronicles 
cover  the  same  period  of  the  history  as  2  Samuel  and 
Kings,  but  the  assignment  of  the  former  to  the  third 
di\ision,  and  of  the  latter  to  the  second,  assures  us  that 


6       THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Samuel  and  Kings  were  Avritten  by  prophets,  while  the 
author  of  Chronicles,  though  writing  under  the  guidance 
and  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  not  officially  a 
prophet. 

As  classified  in  our  present  Hebrew  Bibles,  which 
follow  the  order  given  in  the  Talmud,  this  principle  of 
arrangement  is  in  one  instance  obviously  departed  from  ; 
the  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah  stands  in  the  Hagiogra- 
pha,  though  as  the  production  of  a  prophet  it  ought  to 
be  included  in  the  second  division  of  the  canon,  and 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  this  was  its  original 
position.  Two  modes  of  enumerating  the  sacred  books 
were  in  familiar  use  in  ancient  times,  as  appears  from 
the  catalogues  which  have  been  preserved  to  us.  The 
two  books  of  Samuel  were  uniformly  counted  one  :  so 
the  two  books  of  Kings  and  the  two  of  Chronicles  :  so 
also  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  :  so  likewise  the  Minor  Proph- 
ets were  counted  one  book.  Then,  according  to  one 
mode  of  enumeration,  Buth  was  attached  to  Judges  as 
forming  together  one  book,  and  Lamentations  was  re- 
garded as  a  part  of  the  book  of  Jeremiah  :  thus  the  en- 
tire number  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
twenty-two.  In  the  other  mode  Buth  and  Lamentations 
were  reckoned  separate  books,  and  the  total  was  twenty- 
four.  Now  the  earliest  enumerations  that  we  have  from 
Jewish  or  Christian  sources  are  by  Josephus  ^  and  Ori- 
gen,  who  both  give  the  number  as  twenty-two  :  and  as 
this  is  the  number  of  letters  in  the  Hebrew  alphabet, 
^vhile  twenty-four  is  the  number  in  the  Greek  alphabet, 
the  former  may  naturally  be  supposed  to  have  been 
adopted  by  the  Jews  in  the  first  instance.  From  this  it 
would  appear  that  Lamentations  was  originally  annexed 

'  Josephus  adopts  a  classification  of  his  own  suited  to  his  immediate 
purpose,  but  doubtless  preserves  the  total  number  current  among  his 
countrymen. 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   AND   ITS   STRUCTURE  7 

to  the  book  of  Jeremiali  and  of  course  placed  in  tlie 
same  division  of  the  canon.  Subsequently,  for  liturgical 
or  other  purposes,  Ruth  and  Lamentations  were  re- 
moved to  the  third  division  of  the  canon  and  included 
among  the  five  small  books  now  classed  together  as  Me- 
gilloth  or  RollSj  which  follow  immediately  after  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  and  Job. 

There  are  two  methods  by  which  we  can  proceed  in 
investigating  the  organic  structure  of  the  Old  Testament. 
We  must  take  our  departui'e  either  from  the  beginning 
or  the  end.  These  are  the  two  points  from  which  all  the 
lines  of  progress  diverge,  or  in  which  they  meet  in  every 
development  or  growth.  All  that  which  properly  be- 
longs to  it  throughout  its  entire  course  is  unfolded  from 
the  one  and  is  gathered  up  in  the  other.  Thus  the  seed 
may  be  taken,  in  which  the  whole  plant  is  already  in- 
volved in  its  undeveloped  state,  and  its  growth  may  be 
traced  from  this  its  initial  point  by  observing  how  roots, 
and  stem,  and  leaves,  and  flowers,  and  fruit  proceed 
from  it  by  regular  progression.  Or  the  process  may  be  re- 
versed and  the  whole  be  surveyed  from  its  consummation. 
The  plant  is  for  the  sake  of  the  fruit ;  every  part  has  its 
special  function  to  perform  toward  its  production,  and 
the  organic  structure  is  understood  when  the  office  of 
each  particular  portion  in  relation  to  the  end  of  the 
whole  becomes  known. 

In  making  trial  of  the  first  of  the  methods  just  sug- 
gested, the  Old  Testament  may  be  contemplated  under 
its  most  obvious  aspect  of  a  course  of  training  to  which 
Israel  was  subjected  for  a  series  of  ages.  So  regarding 
it  there  will  be  little  difficulty  in  fixing  upon  the  law  of 
Moses  as  the  starting-point  of  this  grand  development. 
God  chose  Israel  from  among  the  nations  of  the  earth  to 
be  his  own  peculiar  people,  to  train  them  up  for  himself 
by  immediate  communications  of  his  will,  and  by  manifes- 


8       THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

tations  of  his  presence  and  power  in  the  midst  of  them. 
And  as  the  first  step  in  this  process,  first  not  only  in  the 
order  of  time  but  of  rational  arrangement,  and  the  foun- 
dation of  the  whole,  he  entered  into  special  and  formal 
covenant  with  them  at  Sinai,  and  gave  them  a  divine 
constitution  and  laws  containing  the  undeveloped  seeds 
and  germs  of  all  that  he  designed  to  accomplish  in  them 
and  for  them.  The  first  division  of  the  Old  Testament 
consequently  is  the  Pentateuch,  which  contains  this  law 
with  its  historical  introduction. 

The  next  step  was  to  engage  the  people  in  the  observ- 
ance of  the  law  thus  given  to  them.  The  constitution 
which  they  had  received  was  set  in  operation  and  al- 
lowed to  work  out  its  legitimate  fruits  among  them  and 
upon  them.  The  law  of  God  thus  shaped  the  history  of 
Israel :  while  the  history  added  confirmation  and  enlarge- 
ment to  the  law  by  the  experience  which  it  afforded  of 
its  workings  and  of  the  providential  sanctions  which  at- 
tended it  and  by  the  modifications  which  were  from  time 
to  time  introduced  as  occasion  demanded.  The  histori- 
cal books  thus  constitute  the  second  division  of  the  Old 
Testament,  whose  ofiice  it  is  to  record  the  providential 
application  and  expansion  of  the  law. 

A  third  step  in  this  divine  training  was  to  have  the 
law  as  originally  given  and  as  providentially  expanded, 
wrought  not  only  into  the  outward  practice  of  the  people 
or  their  national  life,  as  shown  in  the  historical  books, 
but  into  their  inward  individual  life  and  their  intellect- 
ual convictions.  This  is  the  function  of  the  poetical 
books,  which  are  occupied  with  devout  meditations  or 
earnest  reflections  upon  the  law  of  God,  his  works  and 
his  providence,  and  the  reproduction  of  the  law  in  the 
heart  and  life.  These  form  accordingly  the  third  divis- 
ion of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  laAV  has  thus  been  set  to  work  upon  the  national 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   AND   ITS   STRUCTURE  9 

life  of  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  course  of  their  history, 
and  is  in  addition  coming  to  be  wrought  more  and  more 
into  their  individual  life  and  experience  by  devout  medi- 
tation and  careful  reflection.  But  that  this  outward  and 
inward  development,  though  conducted  in  the  one  case 
under  immediate  divine  superintendence,  and  in  the 
other  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  might 
not  fail  of  its  appointed  end,  there  was  need  that  this  end 
should  be  held  up  to  view  and  that  the  minds  of  the  peo- 
ple should  be  constantly  directed  forward  to  it.  With 
this  view  the  prophets  were  raised  up  to  reiterate,  un- 
fold, and  apply  the  law  in  its  true  spiritual  meaning,  to 
correct  abuses  and  misapprehensions,  to  recall  a  trans- 
gressing people  to  fidelity  to  their  covenant  God,  and  to 
expand  to  the  full  dimensions  of  the  glorious  future  the 
germs  and  seeds  of  a  better  era  which  their  covenant 
relation  to  Jehovah  contained.  They  furnish  thus  what 
may  be  called  an  objective  expansion  of  the  law,  and 
their  writings  form  the  fourth  and  last  division  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

If,  then,  the  structure  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been 
read  aright,  as  estimated  from  the  point  of  its  beginning 
and  its  gradual  development  from  that  onward,  it  con- 
sists of  four  parts,  ^  viz. : 

1.  The  Pentateuch  or  law  of  Moses,  the  basis  of  the 
whole. 

2.  Its  providential  expansion  and  application  to  the 
national  life  in  the  historical  books. 

3.  Its  subjective  expansion  and  appropriation  to  in- 
dividual life  in  the  poetical  books. 

4.  Its  objective  expansion  and  enforcement  in  the 
prophetical  books. 

The  other  mode  above  suggested  of  investigating  the 

'  This  is  substantially  the  same  as  Oehler's  division  first  proposed  in 
his  Prolegomena  zur  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments,  1845,  pp.  87-91. 


10      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

structure  of  the  Old  Testament  requires  us  to  survey  it 
from  its  end,  which  is  Christ,  for  whose  coming  and  sal- 
vation it  is  a  preparation.  This  brings  everything  into 
review  under  a  somewhat  different  aspect.  It  will  yield 
substantially  the  same  division  that  has  already  been  ar- 
rived at  by  the  contrary  process,  and  thus  lends  it  addi- 
tional confirmation,  since  it  serves  to  show  that  this  is 
not  a  fanciful  or  arbitrary  partition  but  one  grounded  in 
the  nature  of  the  sacred  volume.  At  the  same  time  it  is 
attended  with  three  striking  and  important  advantages. 

1.  The  historical,  poetical,  and  prophetical  books, 
which  have  hitherto  been  considered  as  separate  lines  of 
development,  springing  it  is  true  from  a  common  root, 
yet  pursuing  each  its  own  independent  course,  are  by  this 
second  method  exhibited  in  that  close  relationship  and 
interdependence  which  really  subsists  between  them,  and 
in  their  convergence  to  one  common  centre  and  end. 

2.  It  makes  Christ  the  prominent  figure,  and  adjusts 
every  part  of  the  Old  Testament  in  its  true  relation  to 
him.  He  thus  becomes  in  the  classification  and  struct- 
ural arrangement,  what  he  is  in  actual  fact,  the  end  of 
the  whole,  the  controlling,  forming  principle  of  all,  so  that 
the  meaning  of  every  part  is  to  be  estimated  from  its  re- 
lation to  him  and  is  only  then  apprehended  as  it  should 
be  when  that  relation  becomes  known. 

3.  This  will  give  unity  to  the  study  of  the  entire  Script- 
ures. Everything  in  the  Old  Testament  tends  to  Christ 
and  is  to  be  estimated  from  him.  Everything  in  the 
New  Testament  unfolds  from  Christ  and  is  likewise  to  be 
estimated  from  him.  In  fact  this  method  pursued  in  other 
fields  will  give  unity  and  consistency  to  all  knowledge 
by  making  Christ  the  sum  and  centre  of  the  whole,  of 
whom,  and  through  whom,  and  to  whom  are  all  things. 

In  the  first  method  the  Old  Testament  was  regarded 
simply  as  a  divine  scheme  of  training.    It  must  now  be 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  AND   ITS   STRUCTURE        11 

regarded  as  a  scheme  of  training  directed  to  one  definite 
end,  the  coming  of  Christ. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Old  Testament,  though  pre- 
paratory for  Christ  and  predictive  of  him  everywhere,  is 
not  predictive  of  him  in  the  same  manner  nor  in  equal 
measure  throughout.  Types  and  prophecies  are  accumu- 
lated at  particular  epochs  in  great  numbers  and  of  a  strik- 
ing character.  And  then,  as  if  in  order  that  these  lessons 
might  be  fully  learned  before  the  attention  was  diverted 
by  the  impartation  of  others,  an  interval  is  allowed  to 
elapse  in  which  predictions,  whether  implicit  or  explicit, 
are  comparatively  few  and  unimportant.  Then  another 
brilliant  epoch  follows  succeeded  by  a  fresh  decline  ;  pe- 
riods they  may  be  called  of  activity  and  of  repose,  of  in- 
struction on  the  part  of  God  followed  by  periods  of  com- 
prehension and  appropriation  on  the  part  of  the  people. 

These  periods  of  marked  predictive  character  are  never 
mere  repetitions  of  those  which  preceded  them.  Each 
has  its  own  distinctive  nature  and  quality.  It  emphasizes 
particular  aspects  and  gives  prominence  to  certain  char- 
acteristics of  the  coming  Kedeemer  and  the  ultimate 
salvation  ;  but  others  are  necessarily  neglected  altogether 
or  left  in  comparative  obscurity,  and  if  these  are  to  be 
brought  distinctly  to  view,  a  new  period  is  necessary  to 
represent  them.  Thus  one  period  serves  as  the  comple- 
ment of  another,  and  all  must  be  combined  in  order 
to  gain  a  complete  notion  of  the  preparation  for  Christ 
effected  by  the  Old  Testament,  or  of  that  exhibition  of 
Messiah  and  his  work  which  it  was  deemed  requisite  to 
make  prior  to  his  appearing. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  Christ  and  the  coming 
salvation  are  predicted  negatively  as  well  as  positively. 
While  the  good  things  of  the  present  point  forward  to 
the  higher  good  in  anticipation,  evils  endured  or  foretold, 
and  imperfections  in  existing  forms  of  good,  suggest  the 


12      THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM    OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

blissful  future  by  way  of  contrast;  they  awaken  to  a 
sense  of  wants,  deficiencies,  and  needs  which  points  for- 
ward to  a  time  when  they  shall  be  supplied.  The  cove- 
nant relation  of  the  people  to  God  creates  an  ideal  which 
though  far  from  being  reahzed  as  yet  must  some  time 
find  a  complete  realization.  The  almighty  and  all  holy 
God  who  has  made  them  his  people  will  yet  make  them 
to  be  in  character  and  destiny  what  the  people  of  Jeho- 
vah ought  to  be.  Now  since  each  predictive  period  ex- 
presses just  the  resultant  of  the  particular  types  and 
prophecies  embraced  within  it,  its  character  is  determined 
by  the  predominant  character  of  these  types  and  proph- 
ecies. If  these  are  predominantly  of  a  negative  descrip- 
tion, the  period  viewed  as  a  whole  is  negatively  predic- 
tive. If  they  are  prevailingly  positive,  they  constitute  a 
prevailingly  positive  period. 

If  now  the  sacred  history  be  considered  from  the  call 
of  Abraham  to  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  will  be 
perceived  that  it  spontaneously  divides  itself  into  a  se- 
ries of  periods  alternately  negative  and  positive.  There 
is  first  a  period  in  which  a  want  is  developed  in  the  ex- 
perience of  those  whom  God  is  thus  training,  and  is 
brought  distinctly  to  their  consciousness.  Then  folloAvs 
a  period  devoted  to  its  supply.  Then  comes  a  new  want 
and  a  fresh  supply,  and  so  on. 

The  patriarchal,  for  example,  is  a  negative  period.  Its 
characteristic  is  its  wants,  its  patient,  longing  expecta- 
tion of  a  numerous  seed  and  the  possession  of  the  land 
of  Canaan,  which  are  actually  supplied  in  the  time  of 
Moses  and  Joshua,  which  is  therefore  the  corresponding 
positive  period. 

The  period  of  the  Judges,  again,  possesses  a  negative 
character.  The  bonds  which  knit  the  nation  together 
were  too  feeble  and  too  easily  dissolved.  This  was  not 
the  fault  of  their  divine  constitution.     Had  the  people 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  AND   ITS   STRUCTURE        13 

been  faithful  to  tlieir  covenant  God,  their  invisible  but 
almighty  sovereign  and  protector,  their  union  would 
have  been  perfect,  and  as  against  all  foreign  foes  they 
would  have  been  invincible.  But  when  the  generation 
which  had  beheld  the  mighty  works  wrought  under  the 
leadership  of  Moses  and  Joshua  had  passed  away,  the  in- 
visible lost  its  hold  upon  a  carnally  minded  people,  and 
"  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes." 
They  relapsed  from  the  worship  of  God  and  obedience  to 
his  law,  and  were  in  turn  forsaken  by  him.  Hence  their 
weakness,  their  civil  dissensions  tending  to  anarchy  and 
their  repeated  subjugation  by  suiTotmding  enemies  con- 
vincing them  of  the  need  of  a  stronger  union  under  a 
visible  head,  a  king  to  go  before  them.  This  was  sup- 
plied in  David  and  Solomon,  who  mark  the  correspond- 
ing positive  period. 

Then  follows  another  negative  period  embracing  the 
schism,  the  decline  of  the  divided  kingdoms,  tlieir  over- 
throw and  the  captivity,  with  its  corresponding  positive, 
the  restoration. 

If  the  marked  and  prominent  features  of  the  history 
now  recited  be  regarded,  and  if  each  negative  be  com- 
bined with  the  positive  which  forms  its  appropriate  com- 
plement, there  will  result  three  great  predictive  or  pre- 
paratory periods,  viz.  : 

1.  From  the  call  of  Abraham  to  the  death  of  Joshua. 

2.  To  the  death  of  Solomon. 

3.  To  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament. 

All  that  precedes  the  call  of  Abraham  is  purely  pre- 
liminary to  it,  and  is  to  be  classed  with  the  first  period 
as  its  introduction  or  explanatory  antecedent. 

If  these  divisions  of  the  history  be  transferred  to  the 
Old  Testament,  whose  structure  is  the  subject  of  inquiiy, 
it  will  be  resolved  into  the  following  portions,  viz. : 

1.  The  Pentateuch  and  Joshua. 


14      THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

2.  The  recorded  history  as  far  as  the  death  of  Solo 
mon,  and  the  sacred  writings  belonging  to  this  period. 
These  are,  principally,  the  Psalms  of  David  and  the  Prov- 
erbs of  Solomon,  the  great  exemplars  of  devotional  lyr- 
ics and  of  aphoristic  or  sententious  verse,  which  gave 
tone  and  character  to  all  the  subsequent  poetry  of  the 
Bible.  The  latter  may  accordingly  be  properly  grouped 
with  them  as  their  legitimate  expansion  or  appropriate 
complement.  These  echoes  continue  to  be  heard  in  the 
following  period  of  the  history,  but  as  the  keynote  was 
struck  in  this,  all  the  poetical  books  may  be  classed  to- 
gether here  as  in  a  sense  the  product  of  this  period. 

3.  The  rest  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, together  with  the  prophetical  books. 

This  triple  division,  though  based  on  an  entirely  dis- 
tinct principle  and  reached  by  a  totally  different  route,  is 
yet  closely  allied  to  the  quadruple  division  previously 
made,  with  only  divergence  enough  to  show  that  the 
partition  is  not  mechanical  but  organic,  and  hence  no 
absolute  severance  is  possible.  The  historical  books  are 
here  partitioned  relatively  to  the  other  classes  of  books, 
exliibiting  a  symmetrical  division  of  three  periods  of  di- 
vinely guided  history,  and  at  the  close  of  each  an  imme- 
diate divine  revelation,  for  which  the  history  furnishes 
the  preliminary  training,  and,  in  a  measure,  the  theme. 
The  history  recorded  by  Moses  and  consummated  by 
Joshua  has  as  its  complement  the  law  given  at  Sinai  and 
in  the  wilderness.  The  further  history  to  the  death  of 
Solomon  formed  a  preparation  for  the  poetical  books. 
The  subsequent  history  prepares  the  way  for  the  proph- 
ets, who  are  in  like  manner  gathered  about  its  concluding 
stages. 

There  is  besides  just  difference  enough  between  the 
two  modes  of  division  to  reveal  the  unity  of  the  whole 
Old  Testament,  and  that  books  separated  under  one  as- 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  AND   ITS   STllUCTURE        15 

pect  are  yet  united  under  another.  Thus  Joshua,  accord- 
ing to  one  method  of  division  and  one  mode  of  conceiving 
of  it,  continues  and  completes  the  history  of  the  Penta- 
teuch ;  the  other  method  sees  in  it  the  opening  of  a  new 
development.  There  is  a  sense,  therefore,  in  which  it 
is  entirely  legitimate  to  combine  the  Pentateuch  and 
Joshua  as  together  forming  a  Hexateuch.  The  j)romises 
made  to  the  patriarchs,  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  the 
march  through  the  wilderness  contemplate  the  settlement 
in  Canaan  recorded  by  Joshua,  and  are  incomplete  with- 
out it.  And  yet  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  currently 
employed  by  modern  critics,  as  though  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  book  of  Joshua  constituted  one  continuous  liter- 
ary production,  the  term  Hexateuch  is  a  misnomer.  They 
are  distinct  works  by  distinct  writers ;  and  the  func- 
tion of  Joshua  was  quite  distinct  from  that  of  Moses. 
Joshua,  as  is  expressly  noted  at  every  step  of  his  course, 
simply  did  the  bidding  of  Moses.  The  book  of  the  law 
was  complete,  and  was  placed  in  his  hands  at  the  outset 
as  the  guide  of  his  official  life.  The  period  of  legislation 
ended  with  the  death  of  Moses  ;  obedience  to  the  law 
already  given  was  the  requirement  for  the  time  that  fol- 
lowed. Again  the  reign  of  Solomon  may  be  viewed  un- 
der a  double  aspect.  It  is  the  sequel  to  that  of  David, 
carrying  the  kingdom  of  Israel  to  a  still  higher  pitch  of 
prosperity  and  renown  ;  and  yet  in  Kings  it  is  put  at  the 
opening  of  a  new  book,  since  it  may  likewise  be  viewed 
under  another  aspect  as  containing  the  seeds  of  the  dis- 
solution that  followed. 

As  to  the  general  relation  of  these  three  divisions  of 
the  Old  Testament  there  may  be  observed : 

1.  A  correspondence  between  the  first  and  the  follow- 
ing divisions.  The  Pentateuch  and  Joshua  fulfil  their 
course  successively  in  two  distinct  though  related 
spheres.       They   contain,   first,   a  record  of  individual 


16      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

experience  and  individual  training  in  the  lives  of  the 
patriarchs ;  and  secondly,  the  national  experience  and 
training  of  Israel  under  Moses  and  Joshua.  These 
spheres  repeat  themselves,  the  former  in  the  second 
grand  division  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  latter  in  the 
third.  The  histories  of  the  second  division  are  pre- 
dominantly the  record  of  individual  experience,  and 
its  poetry  is  individual  in  its  character.  Judges  and 
Samuel  are  simply  a  series  of  historical  biographies; 
Judges,  of  the  distinguished  men  raised  up  from  time  to 
time  to  deliver  the  people  out  of  the  hands  of  their  op- 
pressors; Samuel,  of  the  three  leading  characters  by 
whom  the  affairs  of  the  people  were  shaped  in  that  im- 
portant period  of  transition,  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David. 
Euth  is  a  biographical  sketch  from  private  life.  The 
poetical  books  not  only  unfold  the  divinely  guided  re- 
flections of  individual  minds  or  the  inward  struggles  of 
individual  souls,  but  their  lessons,  whether  devotional 
or  Messianic,  are  chiefly  based  on  the  personal  experi- 
ence of  David  and  Solomon,  or  of  other  men  of  God. 

The  third  division  of  the  Old  Testament,  on  the  other 
hand,  resembles  the  closing  portion  of  the  first  in  being 
national.  Its  histories — Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and 
Nehemiah — concern  the  nation  at  large,  and  the  same  may 
be  said  to  a  certain  extent  even  of  Esther.  The  commu- 
nications of  the  prophets  now  given  are  God's  messages 
to  the  people,  and  their  form  and  character  are  condi- 
tioned by  the  state  and  prospects  of  the  nation. 

2.  The  number  of  organs  employed  in  their  communi- 
cation increases  with  each  successive  division.  In  the 
first  there  are  but  two  inspired  writers,  Moses  and  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Joshua,  whether  Joshua  himself  or 
another.  In  the  second  the  historians  were  distinct  from 
the  poets,  the  latter  consisting  of  David,  Solomon,  and 
other  sacred  singers,  together  with  the  author   of  the 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  AND   ITS   STRUCTURE        17 

book  of  Job.  In  tlie  third  we  find  the  greatest  number 
of  inspired  writers,  together  with  the  most  elaborate  ar- 
ticulation and  hence  an  advance  in  organic  structure. 

3.  There  is  a  progress  in  the  style  of  instruction 
adopted  in  each  successive  division.  The  first  is  purely 
typical.  The  few  prophecies  which  are  scattered 
through  it  are  lost  in  the  general  mass.  The  second  di- 
vision is  of  a  mixed  character,  but  types  predominate. 
We  here  meet  not  a  simple  record  of  typical  facts  and 
institutions  without  remark  or  explanation,  as  in  the 
Pentateuch  and  Joshua ;  but  in  the  poetical  books  types 
are  singled  out  and  dwelt  upon,  and  made  the  basis  of 
predictions  respecting  Christ.  The  third  division  is  also 
of  a  mixed  character,  but  prophecies  so  predominate  that 
the  types  are  almost  lost  sight  of  in  the  comparison. 

4.  These  divisions  severally  render  prominent  the 
three  great  theocratic  offices  which  were  combined  in  the 
Redeemer.  The  first  by  its  law,  the  central  institution 
of  which  is  sacrifice,  and  which  impresses  a  sacerdotal 
organization  upon  the  people,  points  to  Jesus  as  priest. 
The  second,  which  revolves  about  the  kingdom,  is  prog- 
nostic of  Jesus  as  king,  although  the  erection  of  Solo- 
mon's temple  and  the  new  stability  and  splendor  given 
to  the  ritual  show  that  the  priesthood  is  not  forgotten. 
In  the  third,  the  prophets  rise  to  i3rominence,  and  the 
people  themselves,  dispersed  among  the  nations  to  be  the 
teachers  of  the  world,  take  on  a  prophetic  character  typ- 
ifying Jesus  as  a  prophet.  While  nevertheless  the  re- 
building of  the  temple  by  Zerubbabel,  and  the  prophetic 
description  of  its  ideal  reconstruction  by  Ezekiel,  point 
still  to  his  priesthood,  and  the  monarchs  of  Babylon  and 
Persia,  aspiring  to  universal  empire,  dimly  foreshadow 
his  kingdom. 


n 

THE  PLAN  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

The  books  of  Moses  are  in  the  Scriptures  called  "  the 
law,"  Josh.  i.  7;  "the  law  of  Moses,"  1  Kin.  ii.  3;  "the 
book  of  the  law,"  Josh.  yiii.  34 ;  "  the  book  of  the  law 
of  Moses,"  Josh.  viii.  31 ;  "  the  book  of  the  law  of  God," 
Josh.  xxiv.  26,  or  "  of  the  Lord,"  2  Chron.  xvii.  9,  on  ac- 
count of  their  predominantly  legislative  character.  They 
are  collectively  called  the  Pentateuch,  from  'TrevTe,five,  and 
Tev)(p^i  originally  signifying  an  implement,  but  used  by 
the  Alexandrian  critics  in  the  sense  of  a  hook,  hence  a 
work  consisting  of  five  books.  This  division  into  five 
books  is  spoken  of  by  Josephus  and  Philo,  and  in  all 
probability  is  at  least  as  old  as  the  Septuagint  version. 
Its  introduction  has  by  some  (Leusden,  Havernick,  Len- 
gerke)  been  attributed  to  the  Greek  translators.  Others 
regard  it  as  of  earlier  date  (Michaelis),  and  perhaps  as 
old  as  the  law  itself  (Bertholdt,  Keil),  for  the  reasons : 

1.  That  this  is  a  natural  division  determined  by  the 
plan  of  the  work.  Genesis,  Leviticus,  and  Deuteronomy 
are  each  complete  in  itself ;  and  this  being  so,  the  five- 
fold division  follows  as  a  matter  of  course. 

2.  The  division  of  the  Psalms  into  five  books,  as  found 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  is  probably  patterned  after  the 
Pentateuch,  and  is  most  likely  as  old  as  the  constitution 
of  the  canon. 

The  names  of  these  five  books  are  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
taken  from  the  first  words  of  each.  Those  current  among 
ourselves,  and  adopted  in  most  versions  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, are  taken  from  the  old  Greek  translators. 


PLAN  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH   19 

The  Pentateuch  has  one  theme,  which  is  consistently 
pursued  from  first  to  last,  viz.,  the  theocracy  in  Israel, 
or  the  establishment  of  Israel  to  be  the  people  of  God- 
It  consists  of  two  parts,  viz.  : 

1.  Historical,  Gen.  i. — Ex.  xix.,  tracing  the  successive 
steps  by  which  Israel  was  brought  into  being  as  a  na- 
tion chosen  to  be  the  peculiar  people  of  God. 

2.  Legal,  recording  the  divine  constitution  granted  to 
them,  by  which  they  were  formally  organized  as  God's 
people  and  brought  into  special  relation  to  him.  The 
law  begins  with  the  ten  commandments,  uttered  by  God's 
own  voice  from  the  smoking  summit  of  Sinai,  in  Ex.  xx., 
and  extends  to  the  close  of  Deuteronomy.  The  scraps  of 
history  which  are  found  in  this  second  main  division  are 
not  only  insignificant  in  bulk  compared  with  the  legisla- 
tion which  it  contains,  but  they  are  subordinated  to  it  as 
detailing  the  circumstances  or  occasions  on  which  the 
laws  were  given,  and  likewise  allied  with  it  as  constitut- 
ing part  of  the  training  by  which  Israel  was  schooled  into 
their  proper  relation  to  God.  Of  these  two  main  sections 
of  the  Pentateuch  the  first,  or  historical  portion,  is  not 
only  precedent  to,  but  preparatory  for,  the  second  or  legal 
portion  ;  the  production  and  segregation  of  the  people  of 
Israel  being  effected  with  the  direct  view  of  their  being 
organized  as  the  people  of  God. 

It  will  be  plain  from  a  general  survey  of  these  two 
main  sections,  into  which  the  Pentateuch  is  divided,  that 
everything  in  it  bears  directly  upon  its  theme  as  already 
stated  ;  and  the  more  minute  and  detailed  the  examina- 
tion of  its  contents,  the  more  evident  this  will  become. 
The  first  of  these  two  great  sections,  or  the  historical 
portion,  is  clearly  subdivided  by  the  call  of  Abraham.  It 
was  at  that  point  that  the  production  and  segregation 
of  the  covenant  people,  strictly  speaking,  commenced. 
From  the  creation  of  the  world  to  the  call  of  Abraham, 


20      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

which  is  embraced  in  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Gene- 
sis, the  history  is  purely  preliminary.  It  is  directed  to 
the  negative  end  of  demonstrating  the  necessity  of  such 
a  segregation.  From  the  call  of  Abraham  to  the  law 
given  at  Mount  Sinai,  that  is  to  say,  from  Gen.  xii.  to 
Ex.  xix.,  the  history  is  directed  to  the  positive  end  of 
the  production  and  segregation  of  the  covenant  people. 

The  preliminary  portion  of  the  history  is  once  more 
divided  by  the  flood ;  the  first  five  chapters  of  Genesis 
being  occupied  with  the  antediluvian  period  and  the  next 
six  with  an  account  of  the  deluge  and  the  postdiluvian 
period.  Each  of  these  preliminary  periods  is  marked 
by  the  formation  of  a  universal  covenant  between  God 
and  the  two  successive  progenitors  and  heads  of  the  hu- 
man race,  Adam  and  Noah,  which  stand  in  marked  con- 
trast with  the  particular  or  limited  covenant  made  wdth 
Abraham,  the  progenitor  of  the  chosen  race,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  following  or  patriarchal  period.  The  failure 
of  both  those  primeval  covenants  to  preserve  religion 
among  men,  and  to  guard  the  race  from  degeneracy  and 
open  apostasy,  established  the  necessity  of  a  new  ex- 
pedient, the  segregation  of  a  chosen  race,  among  whom 
religion  might  be  fostered  in  seclusion  from  other  na- 
tions, until  it  could  gain  strength  enough  to  contend 
with  evil  on  the  arena  of  the  world  and  overcome  it,  in- 
stead of  being  overcome  by  it.  The  covenant  with  Adam 
was  broken  by  his  fall,  and  the  race  became  more  and 
more  corrupt  from  age  to  age,  until  the  Lokd  determined 
to  put  a  sudden  end  to  its  enormous  wickedness,  and  de- 
stroyed the  world  by  the  flood.  Noah,  who  was  alone 
spared  with  his  household,  became  the  head  of  a  new 
race  with  whom  God  entered  into  covenant  afresh ;  but 
the  impious  attempt  at  Babel  is  suggestive  of  the  ungod- 
liness and  corruption  which  once  more  overspread  the 
earth,  and  it  became  apparent,  if  the  true  service  of  God 


PLAN  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH   21 

was  to  be  maintained  in  the  world,  it  must  be  by  initiat- 
ing a  new  process.  Hence  the  call  of  Abraham  to  be  the 
father  of  a  new  people,  which  should  be  kept  separate 
from  other  nations  and  be  the  peculiar  people  of  the 

LOED. 

These  two  preliminary  periods  furnish  thus  the  justi- 
fication of  the  theocracy  in  Israel  by  demonstrating  the 
insufficiency  of  preceding  methods,  and  the  consequent 
necessity  of  selecting  a  special  people  to  be  the  Lord's 
people.  But  besides  this  negative  purpose,  which  the 
writer  had  in  view  in  recording  this  primeval  portion  of 
the  history,  he  had  also  the  positive  design  of  paving  the 
way  for  the  account  to  be  subsequently  given  of  the 
chosen  people,  by  exhibiting  and  inculcating  certain 
ideas,  which  are  involved  in  the  notion  of  a  covenant 
people,  and  of  describing  certain  preliminary  steps  al- 
ready taken  in  the  direction  of  selecting  such  a  people. 

The  idea  of  the  people  of  God  involves,  when  con- 
templated under  its  negative  aspect,  (1)  segregation  from 
the  rest  of  mankind  ;  and  this  segregation  is  not  purely 
formal  and  local,  but  is  represented  (2)  both  in  their  in- 
ward character,  suggesting  the  contrast  of  holiness  to  sin, 
and  (3)  in  their  outward  destiny,  suggesting  the  contrast 
of  salvation  to  perdition.  The  same  idea  of  the  people 
of  God  contemplated  under  its  positive  aspect  involves 
(4)  direct  relation  to  God  or  covenant  with  him,  the  ob- 
servance of  his  laws  and  of  the  institutions  which  he  im- 
posed or  established.  Something  is  effected  in  relation 
to  each  of  these  four  particulars  in  each  of  these  prelimi- 
nary periods,  and  thus  much,  at  least,  accomplished  in  the 
direction  of  the  theocracy  which  was  afterward  to  be  in- 
stituted. 

Genesis  begins  with  a  narrative  of  the  creation,  because 
in  this  the  sacred  history  has  its  root.  And  this  not  only 
because  an  account  of  the  formation  of  the  world  might 


22      THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

fitly  precede  an  account  of  what  was  transacted  in  it, 
but  chiefly  because  the  sacred  history  is  essentially  a  his- 
tory of  redemption,  and  this  being  a  process  of  recovery, 
a  scheme  initiated  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  man  and 
the  world  to  their  original  condition,  necessarily  presup- 
poses a  knowledge  of  what  that  original  condition  was. 
Hence  the  regular  and  emphatic  repetition,  after  each 
work  was  performed,  in  Gen.  i.,  of  the  statement,  "  and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good ; "  and  at  the  close  of  all,  "  God 
saw  everything  that  he  had  made ;  and  behold  it  was 
very  good."  Hence,  too,  the  declaration  made  and  re- 
peated at  the  creation  of  man,  that  he  was  made  in  God's 
image.  The  idea  of  primitive  holiness  thus  set  forth  is 
further  illustrated,  by  contrast,  in  the  tree  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  good  and  evil,  which  stood  in  the  midst  of  the  gar- 
den, and  was  made  the  test  of  obedience,  and  especially  in 
man's  transgression  and  disobedience  which  rendered 
redemption  necessary.  The  contrast  of  salvation  and 
perdition  is  suggested  by  paradise  and  the  tree  of  life  on 
the  one  hand,  and  by  the  curse  pronounced  upon  man 
and  his  expulsion  from  Eden  in  consequence  of  the  fall 
upon  the  other ;  by  Cain's  being  driven  out  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  by  Enoch,  who  walked  with 
God  and  was  not,  for  God  took  him.  The  idea  of  seg- 
regation is  suggested  by  the  promise  respecting  the  seed 
of  the  woman  and  the  seed  of  the  serpent,  by  which  the 
family  of  man  is  divided  into  two  opposite  and  hostile 
classes,  who  maintain  a  perpetual  strife,  until  the  serpent 
and  his  seed  are  finally  crushed ;  a  strife  which  culmi- 
nates in  the  personal  conflict  between  Christ  and  Satan, 
and  the  victory  of  the  former,  in  which  all  his  people 
share.  These  hostile  parties  find  their  first  representa- 
tives in  the  family  of  Adam  himself — in  Cain,  who  was  of 
the  evil  one,  and  his  righteous  brother,  Abel ;  and  after 
Abel's  murder  Seth  was  raised  up  in  his  stead.     These 


PLAN"  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH   23 

are  perpetuated  in  their  descendants,  those  of  Seth  being 
called  the  sons  of  God,  those  of  Cain  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  men.  In  conformity  with  the  plan,  which 
the  writer  steadfastly  pursues  throughout,  of  tracing  the 
divergent  lines  of  descent  before  dismissing  them  from 
further  consideration  in  the  history,  and  proceeding  with 
the  account  of  the  chosen  line  itself,  he  first  gives  an  ac- 
count of  the  descendants  of  Cain,  whose  growing  degen- 
eracy is  exhibited  in  Lamech,  of  the  seventh  generation 
(Gen.  iv.  17-24),  before  narrating  the  birth  of  Seth  (Gen. 
iv.  25,  26)  and  tracing  the  line  of  the  pious  race  through 
him  to  Noah,  ch.  v.  By  this  excision  of  the  apostate  line 
of  Cain,  that  narrowing  process  is  begun,  which  was  finally 
to  issue  in  the  limitation  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  And 
in  the  fourth  and  last  place,  the  divine  institutions  now 
established  as  germs  of  the  future  law,  were  the  weekly 
Sabbath  (Gen.  ii.  3),  and  the  rite  of  sacrifice  (Gen.  iv.  3,  4), 
In  the  next  period  the  same  rites  were  perpetuated, 
with  a  more  specific  mention  of  the  distinction  of  clean 
and  unclean  animals  (Gen.  vii.  8),  and  the  prohibition 
of  eating  blood  (Gen.  ix.  4),  which  were  already  involved 
in  the  institution  of  sacrifice,  and  the  annexing  of  the 
penalty  of  death  to  the  crime  of  murder  (Gen.  ix.  6) ;  and 
the  same  ideas  received  a  new  sanction  and  enforcement. 
The  character  of  those  who  belong  to  God  is  repre- 
sented in  righteous  Noah,  as  contrasted  with  the  im- 
godly  world  ;  their  destiny,  in  the  salvation  of  the  former 
and  the  perdition  of  the  latter.  Segregation  is  carried 
one  term  farther  by  the  promise  belonging  to  this  period, 
which  declares  that  while  Japheth  shall  be  enlarged  and 
Canaan  made  a  servant,  God  shall  dwell  in  the  tents 
of  Shem.  And  here,  according  to  his  usual  method,  al- 
ready adverted  to,  the  writer  first  presents  a  view  of  the 
descendants  of  all  Noah's  sons,  which  were  dispersed 
over  the  face  of  the  earth  (Gen.  x.),  prior  to  tracing  the 


24      THE  HIGHER  CKITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

chosen  line  in  the  seed  of  Shem,  to  Terah,  the  father  of 
Abraham  (Gen.  xi.  10-26).  He  thus  exhibits  the  rela- 
tionship of  the  chosen  race  to  the  rest  of  mankind,  while 
singling  them  out  and  sundering  them  from  it. 

Everything  in  these  opening  chapters  thus  bears  di- 
rectly on  his  grand  theme,  to  which  he  at  once  proceeds 
by  stating  the  call  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xii.),  and  going  on 
to  trace  those  providential  events  which  issued  in  the 
production  of  a  great  nation  descended  from  him. 

The  preparation  of  the  people  of  Israel,  who  were  to 
be  made  the  covenant  people  of  God,  is  traced  in  two 
successive  stages  :  first,  the  family,  in  the  remainder  of 
the  book  of  Genesis  (Gen.  ch.  xii.-l.),  secondly,  the  nation 
(Ex.  i.-xix.). 

The  first  of  these  sections  embraces  the  histories  of 
the  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  God  made 
choice  of  Abraham  to  be  the  father  of  his  own  peculiar 
people,  and  covenanted  with  him  as  well  as  with  Isaac 
and  Jacob  severally  to  be  their  God,  promising  to  them — 
(1)  a  numerous  seed,  (2)  the  possession  of  the  land  of 
Canaan,  and  (3)  that  a  blessing  should  come  through 
them  upon  all  mankind.  During  this  period  the  work 
of  segregation  and  elimination  previously  begun  was  car- 
ried steadily  forward  to  its  final  term.  The  line  had  al- 
ready been  narrowed  down  to  the  family  of  Terah  in  the 
preceding  chapter.  Abraham  is  now  called  to  leave  his 
father's  house  (Gen.  xii.),  his  nephew  Lot  accompanying 
him,  who  is  soon,  however,  separated  from  him  (ch.  xiii.), 
and  his  descendants  traced  (xix.  37,  38).  Then  in  Abra- 
ham's own  family  Ishmael  is  sent  away  from  his  house 
(ch.  xxi.),  and  the  divergent  lines  of  descent  from  Keturah 
and  from  Ishmael  are  traced  (ch.  xxv.),  before  proceeding 
with  the  direct  line  through  Isaac  (xxv.  19).  Then  in 
Isaac's  family  the  divergent  line  of  Esau  is  traced  (ch. 
xxxvi.),  before  proceeding  with  the  direct  line  of  Jacob 


PLAN  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH   25 

(xxxvii.  2),  the  father  of  the  twelve  tribes,  after  which  no 
further  elimination  is  necessary. 

The  history  of  this  sacred  family  and  God's  gracious 
leadings  in  Canaan  are  first  detailed,  and  then  the  provi- 
dential steps  are  recorded  by  which  they  were  taken  down 
into  Egypt,  where  they  were  to  be  unfolded  to  a  great  na- 
tion. One  important  stage  of  preparation  for  the  theocracy 
in  Israel  is  now  finished  :  the  family  period  is  at  an  end, 
the  national  period  is  about  to  begin.  Genesis  here  ac- 
cordingly breaks  off  with  the  death  of  Jacob  and  of  Joseph. 

Exodus  opens  with  a  succinct  statement  of  the  im- 
mense and  rapid  multiplication  of  the  children  of  Israel, 
effecting  the  transition  from  a  family  to  a  nation  (Ex.  i. 
1-7),  and  then  proceeds  at  once  to  detail  the  preparations 
for  the  exodus  (i.  8-ch.  xiii.),  and  the  exodus  itself  (ch. 
xiv.-xix.).  There  is  first  described  the  negative  prepara- 
tion in  the  hard  bondage  imposed  on  the  people  by  the 
king  of  Egypt,  making  them  sigh  for  deliverance  (i.  8-22). 
The  positive  preparation  follows,  first  of  an  instrument 
to  lead  the  people  out  of  Egypt  in  the  person  of  Moses 
(ch.  ii.-vi.) ;  second,  the  breaking  their  bonds  and  setting 
them  free  by  the  plagues  sent  on  Egypt  (ch.  vii.-xiii). 
The  way  being  thus  prepared,  the  people  are  led  out  of 
Egypt,  attended  by  marvellous  displays  of  God's  power 
and  grace,  which  conducted  them  through  the  Red  Sea 
and  attended  them  on  their  march  to  Sinai  (ch.  xiv.-xix.). 

Israel  is  now  ready  to  be  organized  as  the  people  of 
God.  The  history  is  accordingly  succeeded  by  the 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  legislation  consists 
of  three  parts,  corresponding  to  three  periods  of  very  un- 
equal length  into  which  the  abode  in  the  wilderness  may 
be  divided,  and  three  distinct  localities  severally  oc- 
cupied by  the  people  in  these  periods  respectively. 

1.  The  legislation  at  Mount  Sinai  during  the  year  that 
they  encamped  there. 


26      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

2.  That  given  in  the  period  of  wandering  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Paran,  which  occupied  the  greater  part  of  the 
forty  years. 

3.  That  given  to  Israel  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  on  the 
east  of  Jordan,  when  they  had  almost  reached  the  prom- 
ised land. 

At  Sinai  God  first  proclaims  the  law  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments (Ex.  XX.),  and  then  gives  a  series  of  ordi- 
nances (ch.  xxi.-xxiii.)  as  the  basis  of  his  covenant  with 
Israel,  which  is  then  formally  ratified  (ch.  xxiv.).  The 
way  is  thus  prepared  for  God  to  take  up  his  abode  in 
Israel.  Accordingly  directions  are  at  once  given  for  the 
prejDaration  of  the  tabernacle  as  God's  dwelling-place, 
with  its  furniture,  and  for  the  appointment  of  priests  to 
serve  in  it,  with  a  description  of  the  vestments  which 
they  should  wear,  and  the  rites  by  which  they  should  be 
consecrated  (ch.  xxv.-xxxi.).  The  execution  of  these 
directions  was  postponed  in  consequence  of  the  breach 
of  the  covenant  by  the  sin  of  the  golden  calf  and  the  re- 
newal of  the  covenant  which  this  had  rendered  necessary 
(ch.  xxxii.-xxxiv.).  And  then  Exodus  is  brought  to  a 
termination  by  the  account  of  the  actual  construction  and 
setting  up  of  the  tabernacle  and  God's  taking  up  his 
abode  in  it  (ch.  xxxv.-xl.). 

The  Lord  having  thus  formally  entered  into  covenant 
with  Israel,  and  fixed  his  residence  in  the  midst  of  them, 
next  gives  them  his  laws.  These  are  mainly  contained 
in  the  book  of  Leviticus.  There  is  first  the  law  respect- 
ing the  various  kinds  of  sacrifices  to  be  offered  at  the 
tabernacle  now  erected  (Lev.  i.-vii.),  then  the  consecra- 
tion of  Aaron  and  his  sons  by  whom  they  were  to  be 
offered,  together  with  the  criminal  conduct  and  death  of 
two  of  his  sons,  Nadab  and  Abihu  (ch.  viii.-x.)  ;  then  the 
law  respecting  clean  and  unclean  meats  and  various  kinds 
of  purifications  (ch.  xi.-xv.),  and  the  series  is  wound  up 


PLAN  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH   27 

by  the  services  of  the  day  of  atonement,  effecting  the 
highest  expiation  known  to  the  Mosaic  ritual  (ch.  xvi.). 
These  are  followed  by  ordinances  of  a  more  miscellane- 
ous character  relating  to  the  people  (ch.  xvii.-xx.),  and 
the  priests  (ch.  xxi.,  xxii.),  the  various  festivals  (ch. 
xxiii.),  the  sabbatical  year  and  year  of  jubilee  (ch.  xxv.) ; 
and  the  whole  is  concluded  by  the  blessing  pronounced 
on  obedience  and  the  cui'se  which  would  attend  upon 
transgression  (ch.  xxvi.),  with  which  the  book  is  brought 
to  a  formal  close  (xxvi.  46).  A  supplementary  chapter 
(xxvii.)  is  added  at  the  end  respecting  vows. 

Numbers  begins  with  the  arrangements  of  the  camp  and 
preparations  for  departure  from  Sinai  (Num.  i.-x.).  The 
people  are  numbered  (ch.  i.),  the  order  of  encampment 
and  march  settled  (ch.  ii.),  and  duties  assigned  to  the  sev- 
eral families  of  the  Levites  in  transporting  the  tabernacle 
(ch.  iii.,  iv.).  Then,  after  some  special  ceremonial  regu- 
lations (ch.  v.,  vi.),  follow  the  offerings  at  the  dedication 
of  the  tabernacle,  including  oxen  and  wagons  for  its 
transportation  (ch.  vii.) ;  the  Levites  are  consecrated  for 
their  appointed  work  (ch.  viii.),  and  as  the  final  act  be- 
fore removal  the  passover  was  celebrated  (ch.  ix.),  and 
signal  trumpets  prepared  (ch.  x.).  Then  comes  the  actual 
march  from  Sinai,  with  the  occurrences  upon  the  journey 
to  Kadesh,  on  the  southern  border  of  the  land,  where 
they  are  condemned  to  wander  forty  years  in  the  wilder- 
ness on  account  of  the  rebellious  refusal  to  enter  Ca- 
naan (ch.  xi.-xiv.).  Some  incidents  belonging  to  the 
period  of  the  wandering  and  laws  then  given  are  re- 
corded (ch.  xv.-xix.).  The  assembling  of  the  people 
again  at  Kadesh  in  the  first  month  of  the  fortieth  year, 
the  sin  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  which  excluded  them  from 
the  promised  land,  and  the  march  to  the  plains  of  Moab, 
opposite  Jericho,  with  the  transactions  there  until  the 
eleventh  month  of  that  year,  including  the  conquest  of 


28      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

the  territory  east  of  the  Jordan  occupy  the  remainder  of 
the  book  (ch.  xx.-xxxvi.). 

Deuteronomy  contains  the  last  addresses  of  Moses  to 
the  people  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  delivered  in  the  eleventh 
month  of  the  fortieth  year  of  Israel's  wanderings,  in 
which  he  endeavors  to  engage  them  to  the  faithful  ob- 
servance of  the  law  now  given.  The  first  of  these  ad- 
dresses (Deut.  i.-iv.  40)  reviews  some  of  the  leading  events 
of  the  march  through  the  wilderness  as  arguments  for  a 
steadfast  adherence  to  the  Loed's  service.  Then  after  se- 
lecting three  cities  of  refuge  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jor- 
dan (iv.  41-43),  he  proceeds  in  his  second  address  with  a 
declaration  of  the  law,  first  in  general  terms,  reciting  the 
ten  commandments  with  earnest  admonitions  of  fidelity 
to  the  Lord  (ch.  v.-xi.),  then  entering  more  into  detail  in 
the  inculcation  of  the  various  ordinances  and  enactments 
(ch.  xii.-xxvi.).  This  law  of  Deuteronomy  thus  set  before 
the  people  for  their  guidance  is  properly  denominated 
the  people's  code  as  distinguished  from  the  ritual  law  in 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  which  is  denominated 
the  priests'  code,  being  intended  particularly  for  the 
guidance  of  the  priests  in  all  matters  connected  with  the 
ceremonial.  The  latter  develops  in  detail  under  symbolic 
forms  the  privileges  and  duties  springing  out  of  the  cove- 
nant relation  of  the  people  to  Jehovah  in  their  access  to 
him  and  the  services  of  his  worship.  The  former  is  a 
development  of  the  covenant  code  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.),  with 
such  modifications  as  were  suggested  by  the  experience 
of  the  last  forty  years,  and  especially  by  their  approach- 
ing entrance  into  the  land  of  Canaan.  His  third  address 
sets  solemnly  before  the  people  in  two  sections  (ch. 
xxvii.,  xxviii.,  and  ch.  xxix.,  xxx.),  the  blessing  consequent 
upon  obedience  and  the  curse  that  will  certainly  follow 
transgression. 

Provision  is  then  made  both  for  the  publication  and 


PLAT^  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH   29 

safe-keeping  of  the  law,  by  delivering  it  to  tlie  custody  of 
the  priests,  who  are  directed  to  publish  it  in  the  audience 
of  the  people  every  seven  years,  and  to  keep  it  safely  in 
the  side  of  the  ark  (ch.  xxxi.) ;  next  follow  Moses's  ad- 
monitory song  (ch.  xxxii.),  his  last  blessing  to  the  tribes 
(ch.  xxxiii.),  and  his  death  (ch.  xxxiv.). 

The  Pentateuch  accordingly  has,  as  appears  from  this 
brief  survey,  one  theme  from  first  to  last  to  which  all 
that  it  contains  relates.  This  is  throughout  treated 
upon  one  definite  plan,  which  is  steadfastly  adhered  to. 
And  it  contains  a  continuous,  unbroken  history  from  the 
creation  to  the  death  of  Moses,  without  any  chasms  or 
interruptions.  The  only  chasms  which  have  been  al- 
leged are  merely  apparent,  not  real,  and  grow  out  of  the 
nature  of  the  theme  and  the  rigor  with  which  it  is 
adhered  to.  It  has  been  said  that  while  the  lives  of  the 
patriarchs  are  given  in  minute  detail  a  large  portion  of 
the  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  during  which  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  dwelt  in  Egypt  is  passed  over  in  silence ; 
and  that  of  a  large  part  of  the  forty  years'  wandering  in 
the  wilderness  nothing  is  recorded.  But  the  fact  is,  that 
these  offered  little  that  fell  within  the  plan  of  the  writer. 
The  long  residence  in  Egypt  contributed  nothing  to  the 
establishment  of  the  theocracy  in  Israel,  but  the  develop- 
ment of  the  chosen  seed  from  a  family  to  a  nation.  This 
is  stated  in  a  few  verses,  and  it  is  all  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  record.  So  with  the  period  of  judicial  abandon- 
ment in  the  wilderness :  it  was  not  the  purpose  of  the 
writer  to  relate  everything  that  happened,  but  only  what 
contributed  to  the  establishment  of  God's  kingdom  in 
Israel;  and  the  chief  fact  of  importance  was  the  dying 
out  of  the  old  generation  and  the  growing  up  of  a  new 
one  in  their  stead. 

The  unity  of  theme  and  unity  of  plan  now  exhibited 
creates  a  presumption  that  these  books  are,  as  they  have 


30     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

been  traditionally  believed  to  be,  the  product  of  a  single 
'v\T.iter;  and  the  presumption  thus  afforded  must  stand 
unless  satisfactory  proof  can  be  brought  to  the  contrary. 

SCHEME  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


aistory, 
Gen.  i.- 
£x.  six. 


Preliminary,  j  Antediluvian,  Gen.  i.-v. 
Gen.  i.-xi.  )  Noachic,  Gen.  vi.-xi. 


Preparatory, 
G^n.  xii.- ' 
Ex.  xix. 


Legislation  Is- 
rael in  wilder- 
ness, Ex.  XX.- 
Deut.  xxxiv. 


The  family.  Gen.  xii.-l. 
(Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob.) 


f  Transition  from  family,  Ex.  i.  1-7. 


The  nation, 
Ex.  i.-xix. 


Preparation  for 
the  exodus,  1. 
8-xiii. 


'  Negative. 

Oppression,  i.  8-22. 

Positive. 
]  The  instrument,   Mo- 
ses, ii.-vi. 
[  The  plagues,  vii.-xiii. 


At  Sinai,  Ex.  xx.-  J      Ex.  xx.-xl 


Exodus  and  march  to  Sinai,  xiv.-xix. 


From  giving  law  to  setting  up  tabernacle. 


Num.  X.  10. 


I  Ordinances  at  Sinai,  Lev.  i.-xxvii. 

I  Preparations  for  departure.  Num.  1.  1-x.  10. 


r  From  Sinai  to  Kadesh,  x.  11-xiv. 
In  Paran,  Num.  x.  J  Forty  years'  wandering,  xv.-xix. 
11-xxi.  I  Kadesh  to  plains  of  Moab,  in  fortieth  year, 


L     XX.-XXXV1. 


In  plains  of  Moab,  , 
Dt.  i.-xxxiv. 


Moses's  first  address  (history),  i.-iv.  40. 
Moses's   second  address  /  Jf^^i'jf  ;  ^^•^^^ 

(law),  I     xJ^.     ' 

Moses's  third  address  (blessing  and  curse), 

xxvii.-xxx. 


Conclusion,  xxxi.-xxxjv. 


m 

MOSES  THE  AUTHOE  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

If  the  Pentateuch  is  what  it  claims  to  be,  it  is  of  the 
greatest  interest  and  value.  It  professes  to  record  the 
origin  of  the  world  and  of  the  human  race,  a  primitive 
state  of  innocence  from  which  man  fell  by  yielding  to  temp- 
tation, the  history  of  the  earliest  ages,  the  relationship 
subsisting  between  the  different  nations  of  mankind,  and 
particularly  the  selection  of  Abraham  and  his  descend- 
ants to  be  the  chosen  people  of  God,  the  depositaries  of 
divine  revelation,  in  whose  line  the  Son  of  God  should  in 
due  time  become  incarnate  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 
It  further  contains  an  account  of  the  providential  events 
accompanying  the  development  of  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham from  a  family  to  a  nation,  their  exodus  from  Egypt, 
and  the  civil  and  religious  institutions  under  which  they 
were  organized  in  the  prospect  of  their  entry  into,  and 
occupation  of,  the  land  of  Canaan.  The  contents  of  the 
Pentateuch  stand  thus  in  intimate  relation  to  the  prob- 
lems of  physical  and  ethnological  science,  to  history  and 
archaeology  and  religious  faith.  All  the  subsequent  rev- 
elations of  the  Bible,  and  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  it- 
self, rest  upon  the  foundation  of  what  is  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch,  as  they  either  presuppose  or  directly  affirm 
its  truth. 

It  is  a  question  of  primary  importance,  therefore,  both 
in  itself  and  in  its  consequences,  whether  the  Pentateuch 
is  a  veritable,  trustworthy  record,  or  is  a  heterogeneous 
mass  of  legend  and  fable  from  which  only  a  modicum  of 
truth  can  be  doubtfully  and  with  difficulty  elicited.    Can 


32      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

we  lay  it  at  the  basis  of  our  investigations,  and  implicitly 
trust  its  rejDresentations,  or  must  we  admit  that  its  un- 
supported word  can  only  be  received  with  caution,  and 
that  of  itself  it  carries  but  little  weight  ?  In  the  settle- 
ment of  this  matter  a  consideration  of  no  small  conse- 
quence is  that  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Its 
credibility  is,  of  course,  not  absolutely  dependent  upon 
its  Mosaic  authorship.  It  might  be  all  true,  though  it 
were  written  by  another  than  Moses  and  after  his  time. 
But  if  it  was  written  by  Moses,  then  the  history  of  the 
Mosaic  age  was  recorded  by  a  contemporary  and  eye- 
witness, one  who  was  himself  a  participant  and  a  leader 
in  the  scenes  which  he  relates,  and  the  legislator  from 
whom  the  enactments  proceeded  ;  and  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  there  is  in  this  fact  the  highest  possible  guar- 
anty of  the  accuracy  and  truthfulness  of  the  Avhole.  It 
is  to  the  discussion  of  this  point  that  the  present  chapter 
is  devoted :  Is  the  Pentateuch  the  work  of  Moses  ? 

1.  It  is  universally  conceded  that  this  was  the  tradi- 
tional opinion  among  the  Jews.  To  this  the  New  Testa- 
ment bears  the  most  abundant  and  expHcit  testimony. 
The  Pentateuch  is  by  our  Lord  called  "the  book  of 
Moses  "  (Mark  xii.  26)  ;  when  it  is  read  and  j)reached 
the  apostles  say  that  Moses  is  read  (2  Cor.  iii.  15)  and 
preached  (Acts  xv.  21).  The  Pentateuch  and  the  books 
of  the  prophets,  which  were  read  in  the  worship  of  the 
synagogue,  are  called  both  by  our  Lord  (Luke  xvi.  29, 
31)  and  the  evangelists  (Luke  xxiv.  27),  "  Moses  and 
the  prophets,"  or  "  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  " 
(Luke  xxiv.  44  ;  Acts  xxviii.  23).  Of  the  injunctions  of  the 
Pentateuch  not  only  do  the  Jews  say,  when  addressing 
our  Lord,  "  Moses  commanded  "  (John  viii.  5),  but  our 
Lord  repeatedly  uses  the  same  form  of  speech  (Mat.  viii. 
4 ;  xix.  7,  8 ;  Mark  i.  44  ;  x.  3 ;  Luke  v.  14),  as  testi- 
fied by  three  of  the  evangelists.     Of  the  law  in  general 


MOSES  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH    33 

he  says,  "  Moses  gave  tlie  law  "  (John  vii.  19),  and  the 
evangehst  echoes  "the  law  was  given  by  Moses"  (John 
i.  17).  And  that  Moses  was  not  only  the  author  of  the 
law,  but  committed  its  precepts  to  writing,  is  affirmed  by 
the  Jews  (Mark  xii.  19),  and  also  by  our  Lord  (Mark  x. 
5),  who  further  speaks  of  him  as  writing  predictions  re- 
specting himself  (John  v.  46,  47),  and  also  traces  a  nar- 
rative in  the  Pentateuchal  history  to  him  (Mark  xii.  26). 

It  has  been  said  that  our  Lord  here  speaks  not  author- 
itatively but  by  accommodation  to  the  prevailing  senti- 
ment of  the  Jews;  and  that  it  was  not  his  purpose  to 
settle  questions  in  Biblical  Criticism.  But  the  fact  re- 
mains that  he,  in  varied  forms  of  speech,  explicitly  con- 
firms the  current  belief  that  Moses  wrote  the  books 
ascribed  to  him.  For  those  who  reverently  accept  him 
as  an  infallible  teacher  this  settles  the  question.  The 
only  alternative  is  to  assume  that  he  was  not  above  the 
liability  to  err ;  in  other  words,  to  adopt  what  has  been 
called  the  kenotic  view  of  his  sacred  person,  that  he  com- 
pletely emptied  himself  of  his  divine  nature  in  his  incar- 
nation, and  during  his  abode  on  earth  was  subject  to  all 
the  limitations  of  ordinary  men.  Such  a  lowering  of 
view  respecting  the  incarnate  person  of  our  Lord  may 
logically  affect  the  acceptance  of  his  instructions  in  other 
matters.  He  himself  says  (John  iii.  12),  *'  If  I  have 
told  you  earthly  things  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye 
believe  if  I  tell  you  of  heavenly  things  ?  " 

2.  That  the  Pentateuch  was  the  production  of  Moses, 
and  the  laws  which  it  contains  were  the  laws  of  Moses, 
was  the  firm  faith  of  Israel  from  the  beginning,  and  is 
clearly  reflected  in  ^every  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
we  have  already  seen  to  be  the  case  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  final  injunction  of  the  last  of  the  prophets 
(Mai.  iv.  4)  is,  "  Kemember  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my  ser- 
vant, which  I  commanded  unto  him  in  Horeb  for  all  Is- 
3 


34     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

rael,  with  the  statutes  and  judgments."  The  regulations 
adopted  by  the  Jews  returned  from  captivity  were  not 
recent  enactments  of  their  leaders,  but  the  old  Mosaic  in- 
stitutions restored.  Thus  (Ezra  iii.  2)  they  built  the 
altar  and  established  the  ritual  "  as  it  is  written  in  the 
law  of  Moses."  After  the  new  temple  was  finished  they 
set  priests  and  Levites  to  their  respective  service,  "  as  it 
is  written  in  the  book  of  Moses  "  (Ezra  vi.  18).  When 
subsequently  Ezra  led  up  a  fresh  colony  from  Babylon, 
he  is  characterized  as  "  a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of 
Moses  "  (Ezra  vii.  6).  At  a  formal  assembly  of  the  people 
held  for  the  purpose,  "  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  " 
was  read  and  explained  to  them  day  by  day  (Neh.  viii. 
1,  18).  Allusions  are  made  to  the  injunctions  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  general  or  in  particular  as  the  law  which 
God  gave  to  Moses  (Neh.  i.  7,  8  ;  viii.  14 ;  ix.  14 ;  x.  29), 
as  written  in  the  law  (vs.  34,  36),  or  contained  in  the 
book  of  Moses  (Neh.  xiii.  1). 

In  the  Captivity  Daniel  (ix.  11,  13)  refers  to  matters 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch  as  "  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses."  After  the  long  defection  of  Manasseh  and 
Amon,  the  neglected  "  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  by 
Moses  "  (2  Kin.  xxii.  8 ;  xxiii.  25  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14 ; 
XXXV.  6,  12)  was  found  in  the  temple,  and  the  reformation 
of  Josiah  was  in  obedience  to  its  instructions.  The  pass- 
over  of  Hezekiah  was  observed  according  to  the  pre- 
scriptions of  "  the  law  of  Moses"  (2  Chron.  xxx.  16),  and 
in  general  Hezekiah  is  commended  for  having  kept  the 
''  commandments  which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  "  (2 
Kin.  xviii.  6).  The  ten  tribes  were  carried  away  captive 
because  they  "transgressed  "  what  "  Moses  commanded  " 
(2  Kin.  xviii.  12) ;  king  Amaziah  did  (2  Kin.  xiv.  6 ;  2 
Chron.  xxv.  4)  "  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of 
Moses,"  Deut.  xxiv.  16  being  here  quoted  in  exact 
terms.     The  high-priest  Jehoiada  directed  the  ritual  "  as 


MOSES   THE  AUTHOR   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH         So 

it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses"  (2  Chron.  xxiii.  18), 
while  appointing  the  singing  as  it  was  ordained  by 
David  ;  a  discrimination  which  shows  that  there  was  no 
such  legal  j&ction,  as  it  has  sometimes  been  contended, 
by  which  laws  in  general,  even  though  recent,  were  at- 
tributed to  Moses.  David  charged  Solomon  (1  Kin.  ii. 
3  ;  1  Chron.  xxii.  13)  to  keep  what  "  is  written  in  the  law 
of  Moses,"  and  a  like  charge  was  addressed  by  the  Lord 
to  David  himself  (2  Kin.  xxi.  7,  8  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  8). 
Solomon  appointed  the  ritual  in  his  temple  in  accordance 
with  "  the  commandment  of  Moses  "  (2  Chron.  viii.  13  ; 
1  Chron.  vi.  49).  When  the  ark  was  taken  by  David  to 
Zion,  it  was  borne  "  as  Moses  commanded  "  (1  Chron.  xv. 
15 ;  cf.  2  Sam.  vi.  13).  Certain  of  the  Canaanites  were 
left  in  the  land  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  "  to  prove  Israel 
by  them,  to  know  whether  they  would  hearken  unto  the 
commandments  of  the  Lord,  which  he  commanded  their 
fathers  by  the  hand  of  Moses  "  (Judg.  iii.  4).  Joshua  Avas 
directed  "  to  do  according  to  all  the  law  which  Moses 
commanded,"  and  was  told  that  "  the  book  of  the  law 
should  not  depart  out  of  his  mouth  "  (Josh.  i.  7,  8).  And 
in  repeated  instances  it  is  noted  with  what  exactness  he 
followed  the  directions  given  by  Moses. 

It  is  to  be  presumed,  at  least  until  the  contrary  is 
shown,  that  "  the  law  "  and  "  the  book  of  the  law  "  have 
the  same  sense  throughout  as  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
also  in  Josephus  and  in  the  prologue  to  the  book  of 
Sirach  or  Ecclesiasticus,  where  they  are  undeniably 
identical  with  the  Pentateuch.  The  testimonies  which 
have  been  reviewed  show  that  this  was  from  the  first  at- 
tributed to  Moses.  At  the  least  it  is  plain  that  the  sacrexl 
historians  of  the  Old  Testament,  without  exception,  knew 
of  a  body  of  laws  which  were  universally  obligatory  and 
were  believed  to  be  the  laws  of  Moses,  and  which  answer 
in  every  particular  to  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch. 


36      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

3.  Let  us  next  inquire  what  the  Pentateuch  says  of 
itself.  It  may  be  roughly  divided  for  our  present  pur- 
pose into  its  two  main  sections :  (1)  Genesis  and  Exo- 
dus (i.-xix.),  historical ;  (2)  Ex.  xx.-Deuteronomy,  mainly 
legal.  The  legal  portion  consists  of  three  distinct  bodies 
of  law,  each  of  which  has  its  own  peculiar  character  and 
occasion.  The  first  is  denominated  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  and  embraces  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.,  the  ten  command- 
ments with  the  accompanying  judgments  or  ordinances, 
which  were  the  stipulations  of  the  covenant  then  for- 
mally ratified  between  the  Lord  and  the  peoi^le.  This 
Moses  is  expressly  said  (Ex.  xxiv.  4),  to  have  written 
and  read  in  the  audience  of  the  people,  who  promised 
obedience,  whereupon  the  covenant  was  concluded  with 
appropriate  sacrificial  rites. 

By  this  solemn  transaction  Israel  became  the  Lord's 
covenant  people,  and  he  in  consequence  established  his 
dwelling  in  the  midst  of  them  and  there  received  their 
worship.  This  gave  occasion  to  the  second  body  of  laws, 
the  so-called  Priest  Code,  relating  to  the  sanctuary  and 
the  ritual.  This  is  contained  in  the  rest  of  Exodus 
(xxv.-xl.),  with  the  exception  of  three  chapters  (xxxii.- 
xxxiv.)  relating  to  the  sin  of  the  golden  calf,  the  Avliole 
of  Leviticus,  and  the  regulations  found  in  the  book  of 
Numbers,  where  they  are  intermingled  with  the  history, 
which  suggests  the  occasion  of  the  laws  and  supplies  the 
connecting  links.  This  Priest  Code  is  expressly  declared 
in  all  its  parts  to  have  been  directly  communicated  by 
the  Lord  to  Moses,  in  part  on  the  summit  of  Mount 
Sinai  during  his  forty  days'  abode  there,  in  part  Avhile 
Israel  lay  encamped  at  the  base  of  the  mountain,  and  in 
part  during  their  subsequent  wanderings  in  the  wilderness. 

The  third  body  of  law  is  known  as  the  Deuteronomic 
Code,  and  embraces  the  legal  portion  of  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy,  which  was  delivered  by  Moses  to  the  peo- 


MOSES   THE  AUTHOR   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH        37 

pie  in  tlie  plains  of  Moab,  in  immediate  prospect  of 
Canaan,  in  the  eleventh  month  of  the  fortieth  year  of, 
their  wanderings  in  the  wilderness.  This  Moses  is  ^x- 
pressly  said  to  have  -Written  and  to  have  .committed  to! 
the  custody  of  the  Levites,  who  bore  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant (Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24-26).i 

The  entire  law,  therefore,  in  explicit  and  positive 
terms,  claims  to  be  Mosaic.  The  book  of  the  Covenant 
and  the  Deuteronomic  law  are  expressly  affirmed  to  have 
been  written  by  Moses.  The  Priest  Code,  or  the  ritual 
law,  was  given  by  the  Lord  to  Moses,  and  by  him  to 
Aaron  and  his  sons,  though  Moses  is  not  in  so  many 
words  said  to  have  written  it. 

Turning  now  from  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  to  its 
narratives  we  find  two  passages  expressly  attributed  to 
the  pen  of  Moses.  After  the  victory  over  Amalek  at 
Eephidim,  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses  (Ex.  xvii.  14), 
"  Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a  book."     The  fact  that 

1  **  This  law,"  the  words  of  which  Moses  is  said  to  have  written  in  a 
book  until  they  were  finished,  cannot  be  restricted  with  Robertson 
Smitli  to  Deut.  xii.-xxvi.,  as  is  evident  from  iv.  44,  nor  even  with 
Dillmann  to  v.-xxvi.,  as  appears  from  i.  5  ;  xxviii,  58,  61 ;  xxix. 
20,  27.  It  is  doubtful  whether  it  can  even  be  limited  to  Deut.  i.-xxxi. 
In  favor  of  the  old  opinion,  that  it  embraced  in  addition  the  preceding 
books  of  the  Pentateuch,  may  be  urged  that  Deuteronomy  itself  recog- 
nizes a  prior  legislation  of  Moses  binding  upon  Israel  (iv.  5,  14  ;  xxix. 
1  ;  xvii.  9-11 ;  xxiv.  8  ;  xxvii.  26,  which  affirms  as  ''  words  of  this 
law"  the  antecedent  curses  (vs.  15-25),  some  of  which  are  based  on  laws 
peculiar  to  Leviticus) ;  and  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  by  which 
Joshua  was  guided  (Josh.  i.  7, 8),  must  have  been  quite  extensive.  Comp. 
Josh.  i.  3-5a,  and  Deut.  xi.  24,  25  ;  Josh.  i.  5b,  6,  and  Deut.  xxxi.  6, 
7  ;  Josh.  i.  12-15,  and  Num.  xxxii.  ;  Josh.  v.  2-8,  and  Ex.  xii.  48 ; 
Josh.  v.  10,  11,  and  Lev.  xxiii.  5,  7,  11,  14;  Josh.  viii.  30,  31,  and 
Deut.  xxvii ;  Josh.  viii.  34,  and  Deut.  xxviii.  ;  Josh.  xiv.  l-3a,  and 
Num.  xxxiv.  13-18  ;  Josh.  xiv.  6-14,  and  Num.  xiv.  24  ;  Josh.  xvii. 
3,  4,  and  Num.  xxvii.  6,  7 ;  Josh.  xx..  and  Num.  xxxv.  10  sqq.  ;  Josh. 
XX.  7,  and  Deut.  iv.  43;  Josh,  xxi.,  and  Num.  xxxv.  1-8;  Josh,  xxii, 
1-4,  and  Num.  xxxii. ;  Josh.  xxii.  5,  and  Deut.  x.  12,  13. 


38       THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  l-'ENTATEUCK 

sucli  an  injunction  was  given  to  Moses  in  this  particular 
instance  seems  to  imply  that  he  was  the  proper  person 
to  place  on  record  whatever  was  memorable  and  worthy 
of  preservation  in  the  events  of  the  time.  And  it  may 
perhaps  be  involved  in  the  language  used  that  Moses 
had  already  begun,  or  at  least  contemplated,  the  prepara- 
tion of  a  connected  narrative,  to  which  reference  is  here 
made,  since  in  the  original  the  direction  is  not  as  in  the 
English  version,  "write  in  a  book,"  but  "in  the  book." 
No  stress  is  here  laid,  however,  upon  this  form  of  ex- 
pression for  two  reasons :  (1)  The  article  is  indicated 
not  by  the  letters  of  the  text,  but  by  the  Massoretic 
points,  which  though  in  all  probability  correct,  are  not 
the  immediate  work  of  the  sacred  writer.  (2)  The  arti- 
cle may,  as  in  Num.  v.  23,  simply  denote  the  book 
which  would  be  required  for  writing. 

Again,  in  Num.  xxxiii.  2,  a  list  of  the  various  stations 
of  the  children  of  Israel  in  their  marches  or  their  wan- 
derings in  the  wilderness  is  ascribed  to  Moses,  who  is 
said  to  have  written  their  goings  out  according  to  their 
journeys  by  the  commandment  of  the  Loed. 

This  is  the  more  remarkable  and  important,  because 
this  list  is  irreconcilable  with  any  of  the  divisive  theories 
which  undertake  to  parcel  the  text  of  the  Pentateuch 
among  different  writers.  It  traverses  all  the  so-called 
documents,  and  is  incapable  of  being  referred  to  any 
one ;  and  no  assumptions  of  interpolations  or  of  manip- 
ulation by  the  redactor  can  relieve  the  embarrassment 
into  which  the  advocates  of  critical  partition  are  thrown 
by  this  chapter.  There  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion 
that  the  author  of  this  list  of  stations  was  the  author  of 
the  entire  Pentateuchal  narrative  from  the  departure  out 
of  Egypt  to  the  arrival  at  the  plains  of  Moab.  ^ 

1  See  Hebraica  viii.,  pp.  237-239;  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review, 
April,  1894,  pp.,  281-284. 


MOSES  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH    3^ 

No  explicit  statements  are  made  in  tlie  Pentatet.cJti  it- 
self in  regard  to  any  other  paragraphs  of  the  history  than 
these  two.     But  it  is  obvious  from  the  whole  plan  and  con- 
stitution of  the  Pentateuch  that  the  history  and  the  leg- 
islation are   alike  integral  parts  of  one  complete  work. 
Genesis  and  the  opening  chapters  of  Exodus  are  plainly 
prehminary  to  the  legislation  that  follows.     The  histori- 
cal chapters  of  Numbers   constitute  the  framework   in 
which  the  laws  are  set,  binding  them  all  together  and 
exhibiting  the  occasion  of  each  separate  enactment.     If 
the  legislation  in  its  present  form  is,  as  it  claims  to  be. 
Mosaic,   then   beyond   all   controversy  the   prej)aratory 
and  connecting   history  must   be   Mosaic   likewise.     If) 
the  laws,  as  we  now  have  them,  came  from  Moses,  by  1      . 
inevitable  sequence  the  history  was  shaped  by  the  same 
hand,   and  the   entire   Pentateuch,   history   as   well   as  \ 
legislation,  must  be  what  it  has  already  been  seen  alii 
after   ages   steadfastly   regarded   it,   the    production   ofi 
Moses. 

4.  The  style  in  which  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
framed,  and  the  terms  in  which  they  are  draw^n  up,  cor- 
respond with  the  claim  which  they  make  for  themselves, 
and  which  all  subsequent  ages  make  for  them,  that  they 
are  of  Mosaic  origin.  Their  language  points  unmistak- 
ably to  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  prior  to  the  occu- 
pation of  Canaan  as  the  time  when  they  were  produced. 
The  people  are  forbidden  alike  to  do  after  the  doings  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  wherein  they  had  dwelt,  or  those  of 
the  land  of  Canaan,  whither  God  was  bringing  them  (Lev. 
xviii.  3).  They  are  reminded  (Deut.  xii.  9)  that  they  had 
not  yet  come  to  the  rest  and  the  inheritance  which  the 
Lord  their  God  was  giving  them.  The  standing  desig- 
nation of  Canaan  is  the  land  which  the  Lord  giveth  thee 
to  possess  it  (Deut.  xv.  4,  7).  The  laws  look  forward  to 
the  time  "  when  thou  art  come  into  the  land,  etc.,  and 


40    THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

slialt  possess  it "  (Deut.  xvii.  14 ;  Lev.  xiv.  34,  etc.) ;  oi 
"  when  the  Lord  hath  cut  off  these  nations  and  thou  suc- 
ceedest  them,  and  dvvellest  in  their  cities  "  (Deut.  xix.  1), 
as  the  period  when  they  are  to  go  into  full  operation 
(Deut.  xii.  1,  8,  9).  The  place  of  sacrifice  is  not  where 
Jehovah  has  fixed  his  habitation,  but  "  the  place  which 
Jehovah  shall  choose  to  place  his  name  there  "  (Deut. 
xii.  5,  etc.).  Israel  is  contemplated  as  occupying  a  camp 
(Num.  V.  2-4,  etc.)  and  living  in  tents  (Lev.  xiv.  8),  and 
in  the  wilderness  (Lev.  xvi.  21,  22).  The  bullock  of  the 
sin-offering  was  to  be  burned  without  the  camp  (Lev.  iv. 
12,  21) ;  the  ashes  from  the  altar  were  to  be  carried 
without  the  camp  (vi.  11).  The  leper  was  to  have  his 
habitation  without  the  camp  (xiii.  46) ;  the  priest  was  to 
go  forth  out  of  the  camp  to  inspect  him  (xiv.  3) ;  cere- 
monies are  prescribed  for  his  admission  to  the  camp 
(ver.  8)  as  well  as  the  interval  which  must  elapse  before 
his  return  to  his  own  tent.  In  slaying  an  animal  for 
food,  the  only  possibilities  suggested  are  that  it  may  be 
in  the  camp  or  out  of  the  camp  (xvii.  3).  The  law  of 
the  consecration  of  priests  respects  by  name  Aaron  and 
his  sons  (viii.  2  sqq.).  Two  of  these  sons,  Nadab  and  Abi- 
hu,  commit  an  offence  which  causes  their  death,  a  cir- 
cumstance which  calls  forth  some  sj)ecial  regulations 
(Lev.  ch.  X.),  among  others  those  of  the  annual  day  of 
atonement  (Lev.  xvi.  1)  on  which  Aaron  was  the  cele- 
brant (ver.  3  sqq.),  and  the  camp  and  the  wilderness  the 
locality  (vs.  21,  22,  26,  27).  The  tabernacle,  the  ark,  and 
other  sacred  vessels  were  made  of  shittim  wood  (Ex. 
xxxvi.  20),  which  was  peculiar  to  the  wilderness.  The 
sacred  structure  was  made  of  separate  boards,  so  joined 
together  that  it  could  be  readily  taken  apart,  and  explicit 
directions  are  given  for  its  transportation  as  Israel  jour- 
neyed from  place  to  place  (Num.  iv.  5  sqq.),  and  gifts  of 
wagons   and   oxen  were   m^tde  for  the  purpose    (Num. 


MOSES   THE   AUTHOR   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH        41 

vii.).  Specific  instructions  are  given  for  the  arrangement 
of  the  several  tribes,  both  in  their  encampments  and  their 
marches  (Num.  ii.).  Silver  trumpets  were  made  to  direct 
the  calling  of  the  assembly  and  the  journeying  of  the 
host  (Num.  X.  2  sqq.).  The  ceremonies  of  the  red  heifer 
were  to  be  performed  without  the  camp  (Num.  xix.  3,  7, 
9)  and  by  Eleazar  personally  (vs.  3,  4).  The  law  of  puri' 
fication  provides  simply  for  death  in  tents  and  in  the 
open  fields  (vs.  14,  16). 

The  peculiarity  of  these  laws  carries  with  it  the  evi-  V 
dence  th.'vt  they  were  not  only  enacted  during  the  so- 
journ in  t'h3  wilderness,  but  that  they  were  then  com- 
mitted to  ^.viiting.  Had  they  been  preserved  orally,  the 
forms  of  expix^sfiion  would  have  been  changed  insensibly, 
to  adapt  them  to  the  circumstances  of  later  times.  It  is 
only  the  unvaryi:ag  permanence  of  a  written  code,  that 
could  have  perpetuated  thes^  laws  in  a  form  which  in 
after  ages,  when  the  people  were  settled  in  Canaan,  and 
Aaron  and  his  sons  wers  dead,  no  longer  described  di- 
rectly and  precisely  the  thing  to  be  done,  but  must  be 
mentally  adapted  to  an  altered  stfitv=)  of  affairs  before  they 
could  be  carried  into  effect. 

The  laws  of  Deuteronomy  are,  besides,  prefaced  by  two 
farewell  addresses  delivered  by  Moses  to  Israel  on  the 
plains  of  Moab  (Deut.  i.  5  sqq. ;  v.  Isqq.),  which  are  pre- 
cisely adapted  to  the  situation,  and  express  those  feel- 
ings to  which  the  great  leader  might  most  appropriately 
have  given  utterance  under  the  circumstances.  And  the 
most  careful  scrutiny  shows  that  the  diction  and  style  of 
thought  in  these  addresses  is  identical  with  that  of  the 
laws  that  follow.  Both  have  emanated  from  one  mind 
and  pen.  The  laws  of  Deuteronomy  are  further  followed 
by  a  prophetic  song  (Deut.  xxxii.)  which  Moses  is  said 
to  have  written  (xxxi.  22),  and  by  a  series  of  blessings  upon 
the  several  tribes,  which  he  is  said  to  have  pronounced 


42    THE   HIGHER  CEITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

before  his  death  (xxxiii.  1),  all  which  are  entirely  appro- 
priate in  the  situation. 

The  genuineness  of  these  laws  is  further  vouched  for 
by  the  consideration  that  a  forged  body  of  statutes 
could  never  be  successfully  imposed  upon  any  people. 
These  laws  entered  minutely  into  the  affairs  of  daily  life, 
imposed  burdens  that  would  not  have  been  voluntarily 
assumed,  and  could  only  have  been  exacted  by  compe- 
tent authority.  That  they  were  submitted  to  and  obeyed, 
is  evidence  that  they  really  were  ordained  by  Moses,  in 
whose  name  they  were  issued.  If  they  had  first  made 
their  appearance  in  a  later  age,  the  fraud  would  inevi- 
tably have  been  detected.  The  people  could  not  have 
been  persuaded  that  enactments,  never  before  heard  of, 
had  come  down  from  the  great  legislator,  and  were  in- 
vested with  his  authority. 

And  the  circumstance  that  these  laws  are  said  to  have 
been  given  at  Mount  Sinai,  in  the  wilderness,  or  in  the 
plains  of  Moab,  is  also  significant.  How  came  they  to  be 
attributed  to  a  district  outside  of  the  holy  land,  which 
had  no  sacred  associations  in  the  present  or  in  the  patri- 
archal age,  unless  they  really  were  enacted  there  ?  and  if 
so,  this  could  only  have  been  in  the  days  of  Moses. 
,'  5.  The  Pentateuch  is  either  directly  alluded  to,  or  its 
existence  implied  in  numerous  passages  in  the  subse- 
quent books  of  the  Bible.  The  book  of  Joshua,  which 
records  the  history  immediately  succeeding  the  age  of 
Moses,  is  full  of  these  allusions.  It  opens  with  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  and  on  the  point  of 
crossing  the  Jordan,  just  where  Deuteronomy  left  them. 
The  arrangements  for  the  conquest  and  the  subsequent 
division  of  the  land  are  in  precise  accordance  with  the 
directions  of  Moses,  and  are  executed  in  professed  obe- 
dience to  his  orders.  The  relationship  is  so  pervading, 
and  the  correspondence  so  exact  that  those  who  dispute 


MOSES   THE   AUTHOR   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH        43 

the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
obliged  to  deny  that  of  Joshua  Hkewise.  The  testimony 
rendered  to  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch  by  the  books 
of  Chronicles  at  every  period  of  the  history  which  they 
cover,  is  so  explicit  and  repeated  that  it  can  only  be  set 
aside  by  impugning  the  truth  of  their  statements  and  al- 
leging that  the  writer  has  throughout  colored  the  facts 
which  he  reports  by  his  own  prepossessions,  and  has 
substituted  his  own  imagination,  or  the  mistaken  belief 
of  a  later  period,  for  the  real  state  of  the  case. 

But  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  remaining  historical 
books,  though  less  abundant  and  clear,  tends  in  the  same 
direction.  And  it  is  the  same  with  the  books  of  the  proph- 
ets and  the  Psalms.  We  find  scattered  everywhere  allu- 
sions to  the  facts  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  its  insti- 
tutions, and  sometimes  to  its  very  language,  which  afford 
cumulative  proof  that  its  existence  was  known,  and  its 
standard  authority  recognized  by  the  writers  of  all 
the  books  subsequent  to  the  Mosaic  age.  (See  note  1, 
p.  62.) 

6.  Separate  mention  should  here  be  made,  and  stress 
laid  upon  the  fact,  which  is  abundantly  attested,  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  known,  and  its  authority  admitted  in  the' 
apostate  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  from  the  time  of  the  I 
schism  of  Jeroboam.     In  order  to  perpetuate  his  power  < 
and  prevent  the  return  of  the  northern  tribes  to  the  sway 
of  the  house  of  David,  he  established  a  separate  sanctu- 
ary and  set  up  an  idolatrous  worship.     Both  the  rulers 
and  the  people  had  the  strongest  inducement  to  disown 
the  Pentateuch,  by  which  both  their  idolatrous  worship 
and  their  separate   national  existence  were  so  severely 
condemned.     And  yet  the  evidence  is  varied  and  abun- 
dant that  their  national  life,  in  spite  of  its  degeneracy, 
had  not  wholly  emancipated  itself  from  the  institutions 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  even  their  debased  worship 


44    THE  HIGHEE   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

was  but  a  perverted  form  of  that  purer  service  which  the 
laws  of  Moses  had  ordained. 

It  was  at  one  time  thought  that  the 'Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch supphed  a  strong  argument  at  this  point.  The 
Samaritans,  while  they  recognized  no  other  portion  of 
the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  in  possession  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  Hebrew  language,  but  written  in  a 
peculiar  character,  which  is  a  more  ancient  and  primitive 
form  of  the  alphabet  than  that  which  is  found  in  any 
Hebrew  manuscript.  It  was  argued,  that  such  was  the 
hostility  between  Jews  and  Samaritans,  that  neither 
could  have  adopted  the  Pentateuch  from  the  other. 
It  was  consequently  held  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
must  be  traced  to  copies  existing  in  the  kingdom  of  the 
ten  tribes,  which  further  evidence  that  the  Pentateuch 
must  have  existed  at  the  time  of  the  revolt  of  Jeroboam, 
and  have  been  of  such  undisputed  divine  authority  then 
that  even  in  their  schism  from  Judah  and  their  apostasy 
from  the  true  worship  of  God  they  did  not  venture  to 
discard  it.  Additional  investigation,  however,  has  shown 
that  this  argument  is  unsound.  The  Samaritans  are  not 
descendants  of  the  ten  tribes  but  of  the  heathen  colonists 
introduced  into  the  territory  of  Samaria  by  the  Assyrian 
monarchs,  after  the  ten  tribes  had  been  carried  into  cap- 
tivity (2  Kin.  xvii.  24).  And  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
-*does  not  date  back  of  the  Babylonish  exile.  The  mu- 
tual hatred  of  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  originated 
then.  The  Samaritans,  in  spite  of  their  foreign  birth, 
claimed  to  be  the  brethren  of  the  Jews  and  proposed  to 
unite  with  them  in  rebuilding  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
(Ezr.  iv.  2,  3) ;  but  the  Jews  repudiated  their  claim  and 
refused  their  offered  assistance.  The  Samaritans  thus 
repulsed  sought  in  every  way  to  hinder  and  annoy  the 
Jews  and  frustrate  their  enterprise,  and  finally  built  a 
a  rival  temple  of  their  own  on  the  summit   of  Mount 


MOSES   THE  AUTHOE   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH       45 

Gerizim.     Meanwhile,  to  substantiate  their  claim  of  be- 
ing sprung  from  ancient   Israel,  they  eagerly  accepted     /I 
the  Pentateuch,  which  was  brought  them  by  a  renegade         ' 
priest. 

While,  therefore,  in  our  present  argument  no  signifi- 
cance can  be  attached  to  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  Ave 
have  convincing  proof  from  other  sources  that  the  books  of 
Moses  were  not  unknown  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes. 
The  narrative  of  the  schism  in  1  Kin.  xii.  describes  in 
detail  the  measures  taken  by  Jeroboam  in  evident  and 
avowed  antagonism  to  the  regulations  of  the  Pentateuch 
previously  established.  And  the  books  of  the  prophets 
Hosea  and  Amos,  who  exercised  their  ministry  in  the  ten 
tribes,  in  their  rebukes  and  denunciations,  in  their  de- 
scriptions of  the  existing  state  of  things  and  its  contrast 
with  former  times,  di-aw  upon  the  facts  of  the  Pentateuch, 
refer  to  its  laws,  and  make  use  of  its  phrases  and  forms 
of  speech.     (See  note  2,  p.  56.) 

7.  A  further  argument  is  furnished  by  the  elementary 
character  of  the  teachings  of  the  Pentateuch  as  compared 
with  later  Scriptures  in  which  the  same  truths  are  more 
fully  expanded.  The  development  of  doctrine  in  re- 
spect to  the  future  state,  providential  retribution,  the 
spiritual  character  of  true  worship,  angels,  and  the  Mes- 
siah, shows  very  plainly  that  the  Pentateuch  belongs  to 
an  earlier  period  than  the  book  of  Job,  the  Psalms,  and 
the  Prophets. 

8.  The  Egyptian  w^ords  and  allusions  to  Egyptian  cus- 
toms, particularly  in  the  life  of  Joseph,  the  narrative  of  the 
residence  of  Israel  in  Egypt  and  their  journeyings  through 
the  wilderness,  and  in  the  enactments,  institutions,  and 
symbols  of  the  Pentateuch  indicate  great  familiarity  on 
the  part  of  the  author  and  his  readers  with  Egyptian 
objects,  and  agree  admirably  with  the  Mosaic  period; 
Moses  himself  having  been    trained   at    the   coui't  of 


46    THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Pharaoh  and  the  long  servitude  of  the  people  having 
brought  them  into  enforced  contact  with  the  various 
forms  of  Egyptian  life  and  taught  them  skill  in  those  arts 
which  were  carried  in  Egypt  to  great  perfection. 

These,  briefly  stated,  are  the  principal  arguments  of  a 
positive  nature  for  Moses's  authorship  of  the  books 
which  bear  his  name.  They  are  ascribed  to  him  by  unan- 
imous and  unbroken  tradition  from  the  days  of  Moses 
himself  through  the  entire  period  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  from  that  onward.  This  has  the  inspired  and  au- 
thoritative sanction  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  of  our  Lord  himself.  It  corresponds  with  the 
claim  which  these  books  make  for  themselves,  corrob- 
orated as  this  is  by  their  adaptation  in  style  and  charac- 
ter to  their  alleged  origin,  and  by  the  evidence  afforded 
in  all  the  subsequent  Scriptures  of  their  existence  and 
recognized  authority  from  the  time  of  their  first  pro- 
mulgation, and  that  even  in  the  schismatical  kingdom  of 
Jeroboam  in  spite  of  all  attempts  to  throw  off  its  control. 
And  it  derives  additional  confirmation  from  the  progress 
of  doctrine  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  indicates  that 
the  Pentateuch  belongs  to  the  earliest  stage  of  divine 
revelation,  as  well  as  from  the  intimate  acquaintance 
with  Egyptian  objects  which  it  betrays  and  which  is 
best  explained  by  referring  it  to  the  Mosaic  age. 

The  assaults  which  have  been  made  in  modern  times 
upon  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  have 
been  mainly  in  one  or  other  of  four  distinct  lines  or  in 
all  combined.  It  is  alleged  that  the  Pentateuch  cannot 
be  the  work  of  Moses,  because  (1)  It  contains  anach- 
ronisms, inconsistencies,  and  incongruities.  (2)  It  is 
of  composite  origm,  and  cannot  be  the  work  of  any  one 
writer.  (3)  Its  three  codes  belong  to  different  periods 
and  represent  different  stages  of  national  development. 
(4)  The  disregard  of  its  laws  shows  that  they  had  no  exist- 


MOSES   THE   AUTHOR   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH        47 

ence  for  ages  after  the  time  of  Moses.  The  first  of  these 
is  the  ground  of  the  earliest  objections ;  the  second  is 
the  position  taken  by  most  of  the  literary  critics ;  the 
third  and  fourth  represent  that  of  those  who  follow  the 
lead  of  >^raf  and  Wellhausen. 


THE  EARLIEST  OBJECTIONS. 

Certain  ancient  heretics  denied  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch,  because  they  took  offence  at  some  of  its  con- 
^^nts ;  ^  apart  from  this  his  authorship  was  unchallenged 
until  recent  times.  The  language  of  Jerome  ^  has  some- 
times been  thought  to  indicate  that  it  was  to  him  a  mat- 
ter of  indifference  whether  the  Pentateuch  was  written 
by  Moses  or  by  Ezra.  But  his  words  have  no  such 
meaning.  He  is  alluding  to  the  tradition  current  among 
the  fathers,  that  the  law  of  Moses  perished  in  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  was  mi- 
raculously restored  word  for  word  by  Ezra,  who  was  di- 
vinely inspired  for  the  purpose.  Its  Mosaic  authorship 
was  unquestioned  ;  but  whether  the  story  of  its  miracu- 
lous restoration  was  to  be  credited  or  not  was  to  Jerome 
of  no  account. 

Isaac  ben  Jasos  in  the  eleventh  century  is  said  to  have 
held  that  Gen.  xxxvi.  was  much  later  than  the  time 
of  Moses.^  Aben  Ezra,  in  the  twelfth  century,  found 
w^hat  he  pronounces  an  insoluble  mystery  in  the  w^ords 
"beyond  Jordan"  (Deut.  i.  1),  "Moses  wi'ote "  (Deut. 
xxxi.  9),  "  The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land  "  (Gen. 
xii.  6),  "  In  the  Mount  of  Jehovah  he  shall  be  seen  " 
(Gen.  xxii.  14),  and  the  statement  respecting  the  iron 

'  Clementine  Homilies,  iii,  46,  47. 

'  Contra  Helvidium  :  Sive  Mosen   dicere   volueris   auctorem  Pentar 
teuclii,  sive  Esram  instauratorem  operis,  non  recuso. 
3  Studieu  und  Kritiken  for  1833,  pp.  639  sqq. 


48    THE  HIGHEE   CEITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

bedstead  of  Og  in  Deut.  iii.  11,  from  which  it  has  been 
inferred,  though  he  does  not  express  himself  clearly  on 
the  subject,  that  he  regarded  these  passages  as  post-Mo- 
saic interpolations.  Peyrerius  ^  finds  additional  ground 
of  suspicion  in  the  reference  to  the  book  of  the  wars  of 
the  Lord  (Num.  xxi.  14),  to  the  Lord  having  given  to 
Israel  the  land  of  their  possession  (Deut.  ii.  12),  and 
"  until  this  day  "  (Deut.  iii.  14).  He  also  complains  of 
obscurities,  lack  of  orderly  arrangement,  repetitions, 
omissions,  transpositions,  and  improbable  statements. 
Spinoza  ^  adds  as  non-Mosaic  "  Dan  "  (Gen.  xiv.  14,  see 
Judg.  xviii.  29),  "the  kings  that  reigned  in  Edom  before 
there  reigned  any  king  in  Israel "  (Gen.  xxxvi.  31),  the 
continuance  of  the  manna  (Ex.  xvi.  35),  and  Num.  xii.  3, 
as  too  laudatory  to  be  from  the  pen  of  Moses ;  and  he 
remarks  that  Moses  is  always  spoken  of  in  the  third  per- 
son. His  opinion  was  that  Moses  wrote  his  laws  from 
time  to  time,  which  were  subsequently  collected  and  the 
history  inserted  by  another,  the  whole  being  finally 
remodelled  by  Ezra,  and  called  the  Books  of  Moses  be- 
cause he  was  the  principal  subject.  Hobbes  ^  points  to 
some  of  the  above-mentioned  passages  as  involving  an- 
achronisms, and  concludes  that  Moses  wrote  no  part  of 
the  Pentateuch  except  the  laws  in  Deut.  xi.-xxvii.  Rich- 
ard Simon  ^  held  that  Moses  wrote  the  laws,  but  the  his- 
torical portions  of  the  Pentateuch  were  the  work  of 
scribes  or  prophets,  who  were  charged  with  the  function 
of  recording  important  events.  The  narratives  and  gene- 
alogies of  Genesis  were  taken  by  Moses  from  older  writ- 
ings or  oral  tradition,  though  it  is  impossible  to  distin- 
guish between  what  is  really  from  Moses  and  what  is 

'  Systema  Theologicnm  ex  Prseadamitarum  Hypothesi,  1655. 
^  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus,  1670. 

*  In  his  Leviathan,  1651. 

*  Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament,  1685. 


MOSES  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH    49 

derived  from  later  sources.  Le  Clerc  ^  maintained  that  tlie 
Pentateuch  was  written  by  the  priest  of  Samaria  sent  by 
the  king  of  Assyria  to  instruct  the  heathen  colonists  in 
the  land  of  Israel  (2  Kings  xvii.  26) ;  a  baseless  conject- 
ure, which  he  subsequently  abandoned.  He  increased 
the  list  of  passages  assumed  to  point  to  another  author 
than  Moses,  claiming  that  the  description  of  the  garden 
of  Eden  (Gen.  ii.  11,  12)  and  of  the  rise  of  Babylon  and 
Nineveh  (Gen.  x.  8)  must  have  been  by  a  writer  in  Chal- 
dea;  that  " Ur  of  the  Chaldees "  (Gen.  xi.  28,  31),  "the 
tower  of  Eder"  (Gen.  xxxv.  21,  see  Mic.  iv.  8),  "  He- 
bron "  (Gen.  xiii.  18,  see  Josh.  xiv.  15),  "  land  of  the 
Hebrews  "  (Gen.  xl.  15),  the  word  i^'inj  "  prophet "  (Gen. 
XX.  7,  see  1  Sam.  ix.  9)  are  all  terms  of  post-Mosaic  ori- 
gin ;  and  that  the  explanation  respecting  Moses  and 
Aaron  (Ex.  vi.  25,  26)  and  respecting  the  capacity  of  the 
"  omer  "  (xvi.  36)  would  be  superfluous  for  contemporaries. 
He  thus  deals  with  the  argument  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment :  ^  "It  will  be  said,  perhaps,  that  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  apostles  often  quote  the  Pentateuch  under  the  name 
of  Moses,  and  that  their  authority  should  be  of  greater 
weight  than  all  our  conjectures.  But  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  apostles  not  having  come  into  the  world  to  teach  the 
Jews  criticism,  we  must  not  be  surprised  if  they  speak  in 
accordance  with  the  common  opinion.  It  was  of  little 
consequence  to  them  whether  it  was  Moses  or  another, 
provided  the  history  was  true  ;  and  as  the  common  opin- 
ion was  not  prejudicial  to  piety  they  took  no  great  pains 
to  disabuse  the  Jews." 

All   these   superficial   objections  were  most  ably  an- 
swered by  Witsius  ^  and  Carpzov.  ^ 

^  Sentimens  de  quelques  Theologiens  de  Hollande,  1685.  '^  Ibid. ,  p.  126. 

3 Miscellanea  Sacra,  2d  edition,  1736,  I.,  oh.  xiv.,  An  Moses  auctor 
Pentateuchi. 

*  Introductio  ad  Libros  Canonicos  Veteris  Testamenti,  Editio  Nova, 
1731,  L,  pp.  57  3qq. 
4 


y 


50     THE  HIGHER  CEITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

"  Beyond  Jordan  "  (Dent.  i.  1),  said  of  Moses's  position 
(/east  of  the  river,  does  not  imply  tliat  the  writer  was  in 
the  land  of  Canaan,  as  is  plain  from  the  ambiguity  of 
the  expression.  In  Num.  xxxii.  19  it  is  in  the  very  same 
sentence  used  first  of  the  west  and  then  of  the  east  side 
of  the  Jordan ;  elsewhere  it  is  defined  as  *'  beyond  Jor- 
dan eastward  "  (Deut.  iv.  47,  49  ;  Josh.  i.  15  ;  xii.  1 ;  xiii. 
8,  27,  32),  and  "  beyond  Jordan  westward  "  (Deut.  xi.  30 ; 
Josh.  V.  1 ;  xii.  7 ;  xxii.  7) ;  and  in  the  addresses  of 
Moses  it  is  used  alike  of  the  east  (Deut.  iii.  8)  and  of  the 
west  (vs.  20,  25).  This  ambiguity  is  readily  explained 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  time.  Canaan  was  "  be- 
yond Jordan  "  to  Israel  encamped  in  the  plains  of  Moab  ; 
and  the  territory  east  of  the  river  was  "  beyond  Jordan  " 
to  Canaan,  the  land  promised  to  their  fathers,  and  which 
they  regarded  as  their  proper  home. 

"  The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land  "  (Gen.  xii.  6) 
states  that  they  were  in  the  country  in  the  days  of  Abra- 
ham, but  without  any  implication  that  they  were  not 
there  still.  "  In  the  Mount  of  Jehovah  he  shall  be  seen  " 
(Gen.  xxii.  14)  contains  no  allusion  to  his  manifestation 
in  the  temple,  which  was  afterward  erected  on  that  very 
mountain,  but  is  based  on  his  appearance  to  Abraham  in 
the  crisis  of  his  great  trial.  The  bedstead  of  Og  (Deut. 
iii.  11)  is  not  spoken  of  as  a  relic  from  a  former  age,  but 
as  a  memorial  of  a  recent  victory.  "  The  book  of  the 
wars  of  Jehovah  "  (Num.  xxi.  14)  was  no  doubt  a  contem- 
poraneous production  celebrating  the  triumphs  gained 
under  almighty  leadership,  to  which  Moses  here  refers. 
As  the  territory  east  of  the  Jordan  had  already  been  con- 
quered and  occupied,  Moses  might  well  speak  (Deut.  ii. 
12)  of  the  land  of  Israel's  possession,  which  Jehovah 
gave  to  them.  The  words  *'  unto  this  day  "  (Deut.  iii.  14) 
have  by  many  been  supposed  to  be  a  supplementary 
gloss  subsequently  added  to  the  text ;  but  this  assump- 


,  MOSES   THE  AUTHOR   OF  THE   PET^TATEUCH         51 

tion  is  scarcely  necessary,  when  it  is  remembered  tliat 
several  months  had  elapsed  since  the  time  referred  to,  and 
Havvoth-jair  proved  to  be  not  only  a  name  imposed  by  a 
successful  warrior  in  the  moment  of  his  victory,  but  one 
which  had  come  into  general  use  and  promised  to  be  per- 
manent. There  is  no  proof  that  the  "  Dan  "  of  Gen.  xiv. 
14  is  the  same  as  that  of  Judg.  xviii.  29 ;  or  if  it  be, 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  in  the  course  of 
repeated  transcription  the  name  in  common  use  in  later 
times  was  substituted  for  one  less  familiar  which  origi- 
nally stood  in  the  text.  The  kings  of  Edom  who  are 
enumerated  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  were  pre-Mosaic ;  and  Moses 
remarks  upon  the  singular  fact  that  Jacob,  who  had  the 
promise  of  kings  among  his  descendants  (Gen.  xxxv.  11), 
had  as  yet  none,  and  they  were  just  beginning  their  na- 
tional existence,  while  Esau,  to  whom  no  such  promise  had 
been  given,  already  reckoned  several.  There  is  nothing  in 
Ex.  xvi.  35  which  Moses  could  not  have  written  ;  nor 
even  in  Num.  xii.  3,  when  the  circumstances  are  duly 
considered  (cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  10  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  5  ;  xii.  11).  And 
the  additional  passages  urged  by  Le  Clerc  have  not  even^ 
the  merit  of  plausibility.  His  notion  that  our  Lord  and  \ 
his  apostles  accommodated  their  teaching  to  the  errors 
of  their  time,  refutes  itself  to  those  who  acknovdedge 
their  divine  authority.  Witsius  well  says  that  if  they 
were  not  teachers  of  criticism  they  were  teachers  of  the 
truth. 

It  should  further  be  observed,  that  even  if  it  could  be 
demonstrated  that  a  certain  paragraph  or  paragraphs  were 
post-Mosaic,  this  would  merely  prove  that  such  para- 
graph or  paragraphs  could  not  have  belonged  to  the 
Pentateuch  as  it  came  from  the  pen  of  Moses,  not  that 
the  work  as  a  whole  did  not  proceed  from  him.  It  is  far 
easier  to  assume  that  some  slight  additions  may  here  and 
there  have  been  made  to  the  text,  than  to  set  aside  the 


b2      THE  HIGIIEK   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

multiplied  and  invincible  proofs  tliat  the  Pentateuch  was 
the  production  of  Moses. 

Note  to  page  43. 

1.  The  book  of  Judges  records  a  series  of  relapses  on  the  part  of  the 
people  from  the  true  worship  of  God,  ii.  10-12,  and  the  judgments  inflict- 
ed upon  them  in  consequence  bj  suffering  them  to  fall  under  the  power 
of  their  enemies,  ii.  14,  15,  as  had  been  foretold  Lev.  xxvi.  16b,  17. 
This  extraordinary  condition  of  things  led  to  many  seeming  departures 
from  the  Mosaic  requirements,  which  have  been  alleged  to  show  that 
the  law  was  not  then  in  existence.  That  no  such  conclusion  is  war- 
ranted by  the  facts  of  the  case  will  be  shown  hereafter,  see  pp.  150  sqq. 
For  other  points  of  contact  with  the  Pentateuch,  comp.  i.  1,  2,  xx. 
18,  and  Gen.  xlix.  8,  Num.  ii.  3,  x.  14;  i.  5,  Gen.  xiii.  7  ;  i.  17,  Deut. 
vii.  2  ;  i.  20,  Num.  xiv.  24,  Deut.  1.  36;  ii.  1,  Gen.  1.  24,  xvii.  7  ;  ii.  2, 
Ex.  xxxiv.  12,  13,  Deut.  vii.  2,  5,  Ex.  xxiii.  21 ;  ii.  3,  Num.  xxxiii.  55, 
Ex.  xxiii.  33,  Deut.  vii.  16  ;  ii.  17,  Ex.  xxxiv.  15,  xxxii.  8  ;  iii.  6,  Ex. 
xxxiv.  16,  Deut.  vii.  3,  4  ;  v.  4,  5,  Deut.  xxxiii.  2  ;  v.  8,  Deut,  xxxii. 
17;  vi.  8,  Ex.  xx.  2  ;  vi.  9,  Ex.  xiv.  30  ;  vi.  13,  Deut.  xi.  3-5;  vi.  16, 
Ex.  iii.  12 ;  vi.  22,  23,  xiii.  23,  Ex.  xxxiii.  20  ;  vi.  39,  Gen.  xviii.  32  ; 
vii.  18,  Num.  x.  9  ;  viii.  23,  Deut  xxxiii.  5,  the  government  established 
by  Moses  was  a  theocracy,  the  highest  civil  ruler  being  a  judge,  Deut. 
xvii.  9,  12  ;  viii.  27,  superstitious  use  of  the  ephod  comp.  Ex.  xxviii.  4, 
30 ;  xi.  13,  Num.  xxi.  24-26 ;  xi.  15,  Deut.  ii.  9,  19  ;  xi.  16,  Num.  xiv. 
25,  XX.  1  ;  xi.  17-22,  Num.  xx.  14,  18,  21,  xxi.  21-24  ;  xi.  25,  Num.  xxii. 
2  ;  xi.  35b,  Num.  xxx.  2,  Deut.  xxiii.  24  (E.  V.  ver.  23)  ;  xiii.  7,  14, 
xvi.  17,  Num.  vi.  1-5,  Deut.  xiv.  2 ;  xiv.  3,  xv.  18,  Gen.  xvii.  11  ; 
xvii.  7-9,  xix.  1,  Num.  xviii.  24,  Deut.  x.  9  ;  xviii.  31,  Ex,  xl.  2,  Josh, 
xviii.  1  ;  xx.  1,  xxi,  10,  13,  16,  ni3?a  word  claimed  as  peculiar  to  the 
Priest  Code;  xx,  3,  6,  10,  Gen.  xxxiv.  7,  Lev.  xviii.  17,  Deut.  xxii.  21  ; 
XX.  13,  Deut.  xvii.  12  ;  xx.  18,  27,  Num.  xxvii.  21  ;  xx.  26,  xxi.  4,  Ex. 
XX.  24;  XX.  27,  Ex.  xxv.  21,  22;  xx.  28,  Num.  xxv.  11-13,  Deut.  x.  8  ; 
XX.  48,  Ur\12  ^""S?  as  Deut.  ii.  34,  iii.  6. 

Comp.  Ruth  iii.  12,  iv.  3,  4,  and  Lev.  xxv.  25  ;  iv.  5,  10,  Deut,  xxv.  5, 
6  ;  iv.  11,  12,  Gen.  xxix. ,  xxx. ,  xxxviii.  The  obligation  of  the  levirate 
marriage  has  in  the  course  of  time  been  extended  from  the  brother  of 
the  deceased  to  the  nearest  relative  ;  as  in  the  case  of  Samson  and  Sam- 
uel the  Nazarite  vow  is  for  life  instead  of  a  limited  term. 

1  Samuel.  Comp.  1.  11  and  Num.  vi.  5  ;  ii.  2,  Ex.  xv.  11,  Deut. 
xxxii.  4,  31 ;  ii.  6,  Deut.  xxxii.  39 ;  ii.  13,  Deut.  xviii.  3  ;  ii.  22,  Ex. 
xxxviii.  8  ;  ii,  27,  Ex,  iv.  27-v,  1,  etc;  ii.  28,  Ex.  xxviii.  1,  4,  xxx.  7, 
8,  Num.  xviii,  9,  11  ;  ii.  29,  iii.  14,  sacrifice  and  meal-offering,  x.  8, 
etc.,  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings,  vi.  3,  trespass-offerings,  vii.  9, 


MOSES  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH   53 

whole  burnt-offering  as  Deut.  xxxiii,  10  (3  Sam.  i.  21,  heave-offerings), 
implying  a  fully  developed  ritual  ;  iii.  3,  iv.  4  (2  Sam.  vi.  2),  Ex.  xxv. 
10,  18,  37,  Lev.  xxiv.  3  ;  iv.  3  (2  Sam.  xi.  11),  Num.  x.  35  ;  vi.  15,  19, 
(2  Sam.  vi.  13,  xv.  24),  Num.  iv.  15 ;  viii.  3,  Deut.  xvi.  19 ;  viii.  5, 
Deut.  xvii.  14 ;  x.  24,  Deut.  xvii.  15  ;  xii.  14,  Deut.  i.  43,  ix.  23  ;  xii. 
G,  8,  Ex.  iii.  10,  vi.  13 ;  xii.  3,  Num.  xvi.  15  ;  xiii.  9-13,  Num.  xviii. 
4 ;  XV.  2,  Ex.  xvii.  8,  14,  Deut.  xxv.  17-19  ;  xv.  6,  Num.  x.  29,  30, 
see  Judg.  i.  16,  iv.  11 ;  xv.  29,  Num.  xxiii.  19;  xiv.  33,  34,  Gen.  ix. 
4,  Lev.  iii.  17 ;  xxi.  9,  xxiii.  6,  9,  xxx.  7,  Lev.  viii.  7,  8 ;  xxviii.  3, 
Ex.  xxii.  17  (E,  V.  ver.  18),  Deut.  xviii.  10,  11  ;  xxviii.  6,  Num.  xii. 
6,  xxvii.  21. 

2  Samuel.  Comp.  vi.  6,  7,  and  Num.  iv.  15  ;  vii.  6,  Ex.  xl.  19,  24 ; 
vii.  22,  Deut.  iii.  24 ;  vii.  23,  Deut.  iv.  7,  ix.  26,  x.  21,  xxxiii.  29 ;  vii. 
24,  Ex.  vi.  7  ;  viii.  ;  4,  Deut.  xvii.  16  ;  xi.  4,  Lev.  xv.  19 ;  xii.  6,  Ex. 
xxi.  37  (E.  V.  xxii.  1)  ;  xii.  9,  Num.  xv.  31  ;  xv.  7-9,  Num.  xxx.  2; 
xxii.  23,  Deut.  vi.  1. 

The  books  of  Kings,  it  is  universally  conceded,  exhibit  an  acquaint- 
ance with  Deuteronomy  and  with  those  portions  of  the  Pentateuch 
which  the  critics  attribute  to  JE.  It  will  only  be  necessary  here,  there- 
fore, to  point  out  its  allusions  to  the  Priest  Code.  The  plan  of  Solomon's 
temple,  1  Kin.  vi.,  vii.,  is  evidently  based  upon  that  of  the  Mosaic 
tabernacle,  Ex.  xxvi.,  xxvii.,  xxx.;  the  golden  altar,  vii.  48,  the  brazen 
altar,  viii.  64,  the  horns  of  the  altar,  i.  50,  ii.  28,  the  lavers,  vii.  43,  44, 
the  table  of  shew-bread  and  the  candlesticks,  with  their  lamps,  vii.  48,  49, 
the  cherubim  upon  the  walls  and  in  the  holiest  apartment,  vi.  27-29,  the 
dimensions  of  the  building,  and  of  each  apartment,  vi.  2, 16,  17,  its  being 
overlaid  with  gold,  vi.  22,  and  all  its  vessels  made  of  gold,  vii.  48-50,  and 
the  Mosaic  ark,  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  tabernacle 
were  brought  by  the  priests  and  Levites  and  deposited  in  the  temple, 
viii.  4.  The  feast  was  held  in  the  seventh  month,  viii.  2,  on  the  fifteenth 
day,  xii.  32,  33,  for  seven  days  and  seven  days  (twice  the  usual  time  on 
account  of  the  special  character  of  the  occasion),  viii.  65,  and  the  people 
were  dismissed  on  the  eighth  day,  ver.  66,  comp.  Lev.  xxiii.  34,  36.  They 
had  assembled  from  the  entering  in  of  Hamath  unto  the  river  of  Egypt, 
viii.  65,  Num.  xxxiv.  5,  8.  The  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the  temple, 
viii.  10,  11,  as  the  tabernacle,  Ex.  xl.  34,  35;  patrimony  inalienable, 
xxi.  3,  Lev.  xxv.  23  ;  blasphemer  to  be  stoned,  xxi.  13,  Lev.  xxiv.  16  ; 
evening  meal  offering  xviii.  29,  morning  meal-offering,  2  Kin  iii.  20, 
Ex.  xxix.  39-41 ;  new  moon  hallowed,  2  Kin.  iv.  23,  Num.  x.  10, 
xxviii.  11  ;  laws  concerning  leprosy,  2  Kin.  vii.  3,  xv.  5,  Lev.  xiii.  46  ; 
high  priest,  xii.  10,  xxii.  4,  xxiii.  4,  Lev.  xxi.  10,  Num.  xxxv.  25 ;  tres- 
pass-offering and  sin-offering,  xii.  16,  Lev.  iv.,  v.  15  (Deut.  xiv.  24,  25)  ; 
the  money  of  every  one  that  passeth  the  numbering    ...     by  hia 


54      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

estimation,  xii.  5  (ver  4,  see  marg.  R.  V.),  Ex.  xxx.  13,  Lev.  xxvii.  2; 
meal-offering,  drink-offering,  brazen  altar  before  the  Lord,  xvi.  13-15 ; 
unleavened  bread  the  food  of  priests,  xxiii.  9,  Lev.  vi.  16-18. 

The  books  of  the  prophets  also  contain  repeated  allusions  to  the  Pen- 
tateuch, its  history,  and  its  institutions. 

Joel  shows  the  deepest  interest  in  the  ritual  service,  i.  9,  13,  16,  ii. 
14-17  ;  and  recognizes  but  one  sanctuary,  ii.  1, 15,  iii.  17  (Heb.  iv.  17) ; 
comp.  i.  10  and  Dent,  xxviii.  51  ;  ii.  2b,  Ex.  x.  14b  ;  ii.  3,  Gen.  ii.  8 ; 
Ii.  13,  Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  xxxii,  14;  ii.  23,  24,  Deut.  xi.  14. 

Isaiah  uses  the  term  "  law  "  to  denote,  or  at  least  as  including,  God's 
authoritative  revelation  through  the  prophets,  i.  10,  ii.  3,  v.  24,  but  also 
as  additional  to  the  word  of  God  by  the  prophets,  xxx.  9,  10,  and  of 
high  antiquity,  xxiv.  5,  and  the  test  of  all  professed  revelations,  viii. 
16,  20,  since  there  are  prophets  that  mislead,  ix.  15,  xxviii.  7,  xxix.  10. 
To  a  people  strenuous  in  observing  the  letter  of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  dis- 
regarding its  spirit,  he  announces  the  law  of  God  to  be  that  the  union 
of  iniquity  with  the  most  sacred  rites  of  his  worship  was  intolerable  to 
the  Most  High,  i.  10-14.  There  is  in  this  no  depreciation  of  sacrifice, 
for  like  language  is  used  of  prayer,  ver.  15,  and  of  worship  generally, 
xxix.  13  ;  and  acceptable  worship  is  described  under  ritual  forms,  xix. 
21,  Ixvi.  20-23,  in  contrast  with  vs.  1-3.  The  terms  of  the  ceremonial 
law  abound  in  i.  11-13  :  sacrifices,  burnt  offerings,  oblations  (meal-offer 
ings),  incense ;  fat,  blood  ;  rams,  bullocks,  lambs,  he-goats  ;  appear 
before  me  ;  court ;  new  moon,  Sabbath,  calling  of  assemblies  (convoca- 
tions), solemn  meeting-  (assembly),  appointed  feasts ;  abomination. 
The  vision  of  ch.  vi.  gives  the  most  explicit  divine  sanction  to  the  tem- 
ple, its  altar  and  its  atoning  virtue.  Other  allusions  to  the  law  of  sacri- 
fice, implying  that  it  is  acceptable  and  obligatory,  xxxiv.  6,  xl.  16,  xliii. 
23,  24,  Ivi.  7,  Ix.  7  ;  Messiah  the  true  trespass-offering,  liii.  10. 

Isaiah  enforces  the  law  of  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary,  Deut.  xii.  5,  6, 
by  teaching  (1)  That  Zion  is  Jehovah's  dwelling-place,  ii.  2,  3,  iv.  5, 
viii.  18,  X.  32,  xi.  9,  xii.  6,  xiv.  32,  xxiv.  23,  xxviii.  16,  xxix.  8,  xxxi. 
4,  9,  Ix,  14.  (2)  The  proper  place  for  Israel's  worship,  xxvii.  13,  xxix. 
1,  xxx.  29,  xxxiii.  20,  Ixiv.  11,  Ixvi.  20;  no  other  place  of  acceptable 
worship  is  ever  mentioned  or  alluded  to.  (3)  Worship  elsewhere,  as  in 
gardens,  on  lofty  places,  and  under  trees,  is  offensive,  i.  29,  30,  Ivii.  5-7, 
Ixv.  3,  4,  11.  (4)  Altars  of  man's  devising  are  denounced,  xvii.  7,  8, 
xxvii.  9.  (5)  All  such  were  abolished  in  Hezekiahs  reform,  xxxvi.  7. 
(6)  No  objection  can  be  drawn  from  the  altar  and  the  pillar  in  the  land 
of  Egypt,  xix.  19  ;  for  the  pillar  was  not  beside  the  altar,  nor  intended 
as  an  idolatrous  symbol,  so  that  it  was  no  violation  of  Lev.  xxvi.  1, 
Deut.  xvi.  21,  22;  and  an  altar  in  Egypt  as  a  symbol  of  its  worship 
paid  to  Jehovah  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  pilgrimages   to  Zion 


MOSES  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH   55 

predicted  from  other  lands,  ii.  3,  xviii.  7,  Ivi.  7,  Ixvi.  20,  23.  So  that 
it  is  not  even  certain,  whether  in  the  conception  of  the  prophet  the  re- 
striction of  the  law  in  this  particular  was  one  day  to  be  relaxed  ;  much 
less  is  there  reason  to  imagine  that  this  restriction  was  unknown  to 
him. 

In  addition  to  these  recognitions  of  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  Isaiah 
makes  allusions  to  its  language  and  to  facts  recorded  in  it.  Thus  comp. 
i.  2,  and  Deut.  xxxii,  1  ;  i.  7,  Lev,  xxvi.  33  ;  i.  9,  10,  iii.  9,  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,  Gen.  xix.  24,  25,  Deut.  xxix.  23  (overthrow  as  i.  7)  ;  i.  17, 
23,  Ex.  xxii.  21  (E.  V.  ver.  22),  Deut.  x.  18,  xxvii.  19  ;  xi.  15,  16,  Ixiii. 
11-13,  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  and  the  exodus  from  Egypt  ;  xii.  2,  Ex. 
XV.  2  ;  xxiv.  18,  Gen.  vii.  11 ;  xxix.  22,  xli.  8,  li.  2,  Ixiii.  16,  Abraham 
and  Sarah  ;  xxx.  17,  Lev.  xxvi.  8,  Deut.  xxxii.  30. 

Micah.  Comp.  i.  3b,  and  Deut.  xxxiii.  29b ;  ii.  lb,  Gen.  xxxi.  29, 
Deut.  xxviii.  32b ;  ii.  9,  Ex.  xxii.  21  (E.  V.  ver.  22) ;  ii.  12,  iv.  6,  7, 
vii.  19,  Deut.  xxx.  3-5  ;  ii.  13b,  Ex.  xiii.  21  ;  iii.  4,  Deut.  xxxi.  18, 
xxxii.  20  ;  iv.  4,  Lev.  xxvi.  6 ;  v.  5  (E.  V.  ver.  6),  land  of  Nimrod, 
Gen.  X.  8-12  ;  vi.  1,  2,  Deut.  xxxii.  1  ;  vi.  4a,  Ex.  xx.  2,  Deut.  vii.  8  ; 
vi.  4b,  Moses,  Aaron,  and  Miriam ;  vi.  5,  Num.  xxii,-xxv.  3,  xxxi.  16  ; 
v.  6  (E.  V.  ver.  7),  Deut.  xxxii.  2 ;  vi.  6,  7,  exaggeration  of  legal  sacri- 
fices ;  vi.  8,  Deut.  X.  12;  vi.  10,  11,  Deut.  xxv.  13-15,  Lev.  xix.  35, 
36  ;  vi.  13,  Lev.  xxvi.  16  ;  vi.  14,  Lev.  xxvi.  26 ;  vi.  15,  Deut.  xxviii. 
38-40  ;  vii.  14,  Num.  xxiii.  9,  Deut.  xxxiii.  28  ;  vii.  15,  miracles  of  the 
exodus;  vii.  16,  Ex.  xv.  14-16;  vii.  17a,  Gen.  iii.  14;  vii.  17b,  Deut. 
xxxii.  24b ;  vii.  18a,  Ex.  xv.  11  ;  vii.  18b,  Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7. 

Jeremiah's  familiarity  with  Deuteronomy  is  universally  conceded ; 
it  will  accordingly  be  sufficient  to  show  that  his  book  of  prophecy  is 
likewise  related  to  other  portions  of  the  Pentateuch.  Comp.  ii.  3,  and 
Lev.  xxii.  10,  15,  16  ;  ii.  20,  Lev.  xxvi.  13  ;  ii.  34  (see  Rev.  Ver.),  Ex. 
xxii.  1  (E.  V.  ver.  2) ;  iv.  23,  Gen.  i.  2  ;  iv.  27,  Lev.  xxvi.  33  ;  v.  2, 
Lev.  xix.  12 ;  vi.  28,  ix.  4,  Lev.  xix.  16  ;  vii.  26,  Ex.  xxxii.  9,  xxxiii. 
3,  5,  xxxiv.  9  ;  ix.  4,  Gen.  xxvii.  36  ;  ix.  16,  Lev.  xxvi.  33  (Deut.  xxviii. 
36)  ;  ix.  26  (see  Rev.  Ver.)  Lev.  xix.  27,  xxi.  5  ;  ix.  26b,  Lev.  xxvi. 
41  ;  xi.  4,  Ex.  xix.  5,  Lev.  xxvi.  12,  13  ;  xi.  5,  Ex.  iii.  8,  Num.  xiv. 
23 ;  xiv.  13,  Lev.  xxvi,  6  ;  xiv.  19,  21,  Lev.  xxvi.  11,  44 ;  xv.  1,  Ex. 
xxxii.  11;  xvi.  5,  Num.  vi.  26;  xvii.  1,  Ex.  xxxii.  16  ;  xvii.  22,  Ex. 
XX.  8-11;  xxi.  5,  Ex.  vi.  1,  6;  xxviii.  2,  4,  Lev.  xxvi.  13;  xxx.  21, 
Num.  xvi.  5,  9  ;  xxxi.  9,  Ex.  iv.  22  ;  xxxi.  15,  Gen.  xxxv.  19,  xxxvii. 
35,  xlii.  36  ;  xxxi.  29,  Ex.  xx.  5  ;  xxxi.  35,  36,  Gen.  i.  16,  viii.  22  ; 
xxxii.  7,  8,  Lev.  xxv,  25,  49  ;  xxxii.  17,  27b,  Gen.  xviii.  14;  xxxii. 
18,  Ex.  XX.  5,  6,  xxxiv.  6,  7;  xxxii.  27,  Num.  xvi.  22,  xxvii.  16  ;  xxxiii. 
22,  Gen.  xiii.  16,  xv.  5,  xxii.  17 ;  xxxiii.  26,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Ja- 
cob ;  xxxiv.  13,  Ex.  xx.  2,  xxiv.  7;  xxxiv.  18,  19,  Gen.  xv,  17  ;  xxxvi. 


56      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

14,  Ex.  xxi.  2;  xlviii.  45,  46,  Num.  xxi.  28,  29;  xlix.   16,  Num.  xxiv. 
21 ;  xlix.  18,  1.  40,  Gen.  xix.  25. 

Psalm  xc,  wliicli  is  in  its  title  ascribed  to  Moses,  abounds  in  allu- 
sions to  the  statements  of  the  Pentateuch  and  in  coincidences  of  lan- 
guage ;  see  the  Commentary  of  Delitzsch.  The  following  may  be  noted 
in  those  Psalms  of  the  first  three  books,  which  are  in  their  titles 
ascribed  to  David  (the  number  of  each  verse  in  the  English  version  is 
commonly  one  less  than  in  the  Hebrew).  Comp.  iii.  4,  and  Gen,  xv. 
1;  iv.  6,  li.  21,  Deut.  xxxiii.  19  ;  iv.  7,  Num.  vi.  25,  26  ;  iv.  9,  Lev. 
XXV.  18,  19,  Deut.  xxxiii.  28  ;  vii.  13,  14,  Deut.  xxxii.  23,  41,  42;  viii. 
7-9,  Gen.  i.  26  ;  ix.  6,  Deut.  ix.  14  ;  ix.  13,  Gen.  ix.  5 ;  ix.  17,  Ex.  vii. 
4b,  5;  xi.  6,  Gen.  xix.  24;  xiii.  2,  Deut.  xxxi.  18;  xiv.  1,  Gen.  vi.  11, 
12  ;  XV.  5,  Ex.  xxii.  25,  xxiii.  8  ;  xvi.  4,  Ex.  xxiii.  13  ;  xvi.  5,  Num. 
xviii.  20,  Deut.  x.  9;  xvii.  8,  Deut.  xxxii.  10;  xviii.  16,  Ex.  xv.  8; 
xviii.  27b,  Lev.  xxvi.  23b,  24a  ;  xviii.  31a,  32,  Deut.  xxxii.  4a,  37,  39  ; 
xviii.  34b,  Deut.  xxxii.  13a,  xxxiii.  29b  ;  xviii.  45b,  Deut.  xxxiii.  29b  ; 
xix.  contrasts  the  glory  of  God  as  seen  in  the  heavens  with  that  of  the 
law,  testimony,  statutes,  commandments,  and  judgments  of  Jehovah, 
Lev.  xxvi.  46,  xxvii.  34,  Ex.  xxv.  16;  xx.  6,  Ex.  xvii.  15,  Jehovah  my 
banner  ;  xxiv.  1,  Ex.  ix.  29b,  xix.  5b  ;  xxiv.  2,  Gen.  i.  9  ;  xxv.  4,  Ex. 
xxxiii.  13  ;  xxvi.  6,  Ex.  xxx.  19-21 ;  xxvii.  1,  Ex.  xv.  2  ;  xxviii.  9, 
Deut.  ix.  29  ;  xxix.  6,  Sirion,  Deut.  iii.  9;  xxix.  10,  flood,  Gen.  vi.  17; 
xxxi.  9a,  Deut.  xxxii.  30 ;  xxxi.  16,  Num.  vi.  25  ;  xxxiv.  17,  Lev.  xvii. 
10  ;  XXXV.  10,  Ex.  xv.  11  ;  xxxvii.  26,  Deut.  xxviii.  12  ;  xxxvii.  31, 
Deut,  vi.  6  ;  xxxix.  13b,  Lev.  xxv.  23b;  xl.  7,  Ex.  xxi.  6?;  xl.  8,  the 
volume  of  the  book  is  the  law,  which  in  requiring  sacrifice  intends 
much  more  than  the  outward  form  of  sacrifice,  ver,  7 ;  it  lays  its  real 
demand  upon  the  person  of  the  offerer  himself  ;  li.  9,  hyssop.  Lev.  xiv. 
4,  Num.  xix.  6,  18  ;  Iv.  16,  Num.  xvi.  30  ;  Ix.  9,  Gen.  xlix.  10 ;  Ix.  14, 
Num.  xxiv.  18  ;  Ixiii.  12,  Deut.  vi.  13  ;  Ixviii.  2,  Num.  x.  35  ;  Ixviii. 
8,  9,  18,  Sinai  ;  Ixix.  29,  Ex.  xxxii.  32  ;  Ixxxvi.  8,  10,  Ex.  xv.  11, 
Deut.  xxxii.  39  ;  Ixxxvi.  15,  Ex.  xxxiv.  6. 

On  the  traces  of  the  Pentateuch  in  later  books  see  Havernick,  Ein- 
leitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament),  I. 
§§  136-142.  Keil,  Einleitiing  in  A.  T.  §  34.  Caspari,  Beitriige  zur 
Einleitung  in  Jesaia  (Contributions  to  the  Introduction  to  Isaiah),  pp. 
204  sqq.  Caspari,  "  Ueber  Micha,"  pp.  419  sqq.  Kueper,  Jeremias 
Librorum  Sacrorum  Interpres  atque  Viudex,  pp.  1-51. 

Note  to  page  45. 

2.  Allusions  in  Hosea  and  Amos  to  the  facts  recorded  in  the  Penta- 
teuch: Comp.  Hos.  i.  10,  and  Gen.  xxii.  17,  xxxii.  12;  xi.  8,  Deut. 
xxix.  23  ;  xii.  3a,  Gen.  xxv.  26  ;  xii.  3b,  4a,  Gen.  xxxii.  28  ;  xii.  4b, 


MOSES   THE   AUTHOR   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH        57 

Gen.  xxviii.  12-19,  xxxv.  6-13;  xii.  12,  Jacob  fled  to  Padaii-aram, 
served  for  a  wife,  and  kept  sheep  ;  ii.  15b,  xi.  1,  xiii.  5,  exodus  from 
Egypt  and  life  in  the  wilderness  ;  ix.  10,  Num.  xxv.  3  ;  the  places  of 
idolatrous  worship  were  such  as  were  made  sacred  by  events  in  the  his- 
tory of  their  fathers,  iv,  15,  Josh,  iv.  20,  Gen.  xxviii.  19  (Bethel  the 
house  of  God  is  converted  into  Beth-aven,  house  of  wickedness) ;  xii. 
11,  Gen.  xxxi.  48  ;  Amos,  v.  8,  Gen.  vii,  11  ;  iv.  11,  Gen.  xix.  24,  25  ; 
i.  11,  Edom,  Israel's  brother,  Gen.  xxv.  27,  Deut.  xxiii.  7;  iv.  4,  v.  5, 
places  of  idolatry  hallowed  by  events  in  the  time  of  their  forefathers  ; 
ii.  10,  iii.  1,  V.  25,  26,  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  forty  years  in  the  wil- 
derness, and  idolatry  there,  Deut,  v.  6,  xxix.  5,  Lev.  xvii.  7  ;  iii.  2, 
Deut.  xiv.  2  ;  vi.  14,  Num.  xxxi  v.  5,  8  ;  ii.  9,  stature  of  the  Amorites, 
Num.  xiii.  82,  33,  Deut.  i,  20,  28. 

References  to  its  laws  :  Hosea  constantly  sets  forth  the  relation  between 
Jehovah  and  Israel  under  the  emblem  of  a  marriage,  comp.  Ex.  xx.  5, 
xxxiv.  14-16,  Lev.  xvii,  7,  xx.  5,  6.  Israel  is  an  unfaithful  wife,  who 
had  responded  to  her  lord  in  former  days,  when  she  came  up  out  of 
Egypt,  ii.  15,  Ex.  xxiv.  7,  but  had  since  abandoned  him  for  other  lov- 
ers, ch.  i.-  iii.,  Baal  and  the  calves,  xiii,  1,  2  ;  she  has  broken  her  cov- 
enant, has  dealt  treacherously,  v.  7,  vi.  7  ;  has  backslidden,  iv.  16,  xi. 
7,  xiv.  4  ;  is  repeating  the  atrocity  of  Gibeah,  ix.  9,  x.  9  ;  is  shamelessly 
sacrificing  on  the  hills  and  under  shady  trees,  iv.  13,  Deut.  xii.  2  ; 
Israel  had  an  extensive  written  law,  Hos.  viii,  12  (see  a  discussion  of 
this  passage  in  the  Presbyterian  Bedew  for  October,  1886),  which  they 
had  disobeyed,  iv,  6,  viii,  1 ;  the  annual  feasts,  new-moons,  sabbaths, 
and  festive  assemblies  were  observed  in  Israel,  and  held  in  high  esteem, 
and  occupied  a  prominent  place  in  the  life  of  the  people,  so  that  their 
abolition  would  be  reckoned  a  serious  disaster,  Hos.  ii,  11,  ix,  5,  xii.  9, 
Am.  V.  21,  viii.  5;  they  had  burnt-offerings,  meal  offerings,  peace- 
oflferings.  Am  v,  22,  Hos.  viii,  13  ;  thank-offerings,  free-will-offerings, 
Am.  iv,  5  ;  drink-offerings,  Hos.  ix.  4  ;  the  daily  morning  sacrifice.  Am, 
iv.  4  ;  Hos.  iv.  8,  alludes  to  the  law  of  the  sin-offering  ;  Hos.  ix.  3,  4, 
to  the  law  of  clean  and  unclean  meats;  viii.  11,  xii.  11,  the  sin  of  mul- 
tiplying altars  implies  the  law  of  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary,  Deut.  xii. 
5,6  ;  V.  10,  removing  landmarks,  Deut.  xix,  14,  xxvii,  17;  iv.  4,  the 
final  reference  of  causes  in  dispute  to  the  priest,  refusal  to  hear  whom 
was  a  capital  offence,  Deut,  xvii.  12  ;  viii,  13,  ix.  3,  penalty  of  a  return 
to  Egypt,  Deut.  xxviii.  68  ;  ix.  4,  defilement  from  the  dead,  Num.  xix. 
14,  22,  Deut.  xxvi.  14 ;  x.  11,  the  ox  not  to  be  muzzled  when  treading 
out  corn,  Deut.  xxv.  4 ;  vi.  9,  JlST  is  a  technical  word  of  the  Holiness 
Laws,  Lev.  xviii.  17  ;  xiv,  3,  mercy  for  the  fatherless.  Ex,  xxii,  21,  22, 
(E.  V.  vs.  22,  23),  Deut.  x.  18  ;  vi.  11,  Am.  ix,  14,  God  returns  to  the 
captivity  of  his  people,  Deut.   xxx.  3  ;  Amos,   though  delivering  his 


58       THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

message  in  Bethel,  knows  but  one  sanctuary,  that  in  Zion,  i.  2  ;  ii.  7, 
the  law  of  incest,  Lev.  xx.  11,  Deut.  xxii.  30;  ii.  11,  13,  Nazarites, 
Num  vi.  2,  3,  and  prophets,  Deut.  xviii.  15  ;  ir.  4,  triennial  tithes, 
Deut.  xiv.  28,  xxvi.  12,  for  which  in  their  excess  of  zeal  they  may  sub- 
stitute tithes  every  three  days  ;  viii.  5,  falsifying  the  ephah,  shekel, 
and  balances,  Lev.  xix.  36,  Deut.  xxv.  13-15. 

Coincidences  of  thought  or  expression  :  Comp  Hos.  ii.  17,  and  Ex. 
xxiii.  13  ;  iii.  1,  look  to  other  gods,  Deut.  xxxi.  18  (Heb.) ;  v.  14-vi.  1, 
Deut.  iv.  29,  30,  xxxii.  39  ;  iv.  10,  Lev.  xxvi.  26  ;  xi.  1,  Ex.  iv.  22,  23  ; 
xii.  5,  Ex.  iii.  15  ;  xiii.  6,  Deut.  viii.  12-14  ;  Am.  ii.  7,  to  profane  my 
holy  name,  Lev.  xx.  3  ;  iv.  6,  8,  Deut.  xxviii.  48  ;  iv.  9,  Deut.  xxviii. 
22;  iv.  10,  Deut.  xxviii.  60  ;  iv.  6,  8,  9,  10,  Deut  iv.  30;  v.  11,  ix. 
14,  Deut.  xxviii.  30,  39  ;  vi.  12,  gall  and  wormwood,  Deut.  xxix.  18 ; 
ix.  13,  Lev.  xxvi.  5. 

For  traces  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  whether  in 
Hosea,  Amos,  or  the  Books  of  Kings,  see  Hengstenberg,  '*  Authentie 
des  Pentate aches,"  I.  pp.  48-180. 


IV 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

The  second  objection  whicli  has  been  urged  against 
the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  affects  its  form 
rather  than  its  contents.  It  is  affirmed  that  such  is  the 
constitution  of  the  Pentateuch  as  to  evince  that  it  is  not 
the  continuous  composition  of  any  one  writer,  but  that  it 
is  compacted  of  parts  of  diverse  origin,  the  products  of 
different  writers,  themselves  long  posterior  to  the  Mosaic 
age;  and  consequently  the  Pentateuch,  though  it  may 
contain  some  Mosaic  elements,  cannot  in  its  present 
form  have  proceeded  from  Moses,  but  must  belong  to  a 
much  later  period.  This  objection  is  primarily  directed 
against  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  only  seconda- 
rily against  its  authenticity. 

In  order  to  render  intelligible  the  nature  of  the  parti- 
tion hypotheses,  with  which  we  shall  have  to  deal,  the 
nomenclature  which  they  employ,  and  their  application 
to  the  Pentateuch,  it  will  be  necessary  first  to  state  pre- 
cisely what  is  meant  by  the  unity  for  which  we  contend, 
and  then  give  a  brief  account  of  the  origin  and  history  of 
those  hypotheses  by  which  it  has  been  impugned,  and 
the  several  forms  which  they  have  succcessively  as- 
sumed. 

By  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  is  meant  that  it  is  in  its 
present  form  one  continuous  work,  the  product  of  a  sin- 
gle writer.  This  is  not  opposed  to  the  idea  of  his  having 
had  before  him  written  sources  in  any  number  or  variety, 
from  which  he  may  have  drawn  his  materials,  provided 


60      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

tlie  composition  was  his  own.  It  is  of  no  consequence, 
so  far  as  our  present  inquiry  is  concerned,  whether  the 
facts  related  were  learned  from  pre-existing  writings,  or 
from  credible  tradition,  or  from  his  own  personal  knowl- 
edge, or  from  immediate  divine  revelation.  From  what- 
ever source  the  materials  may  have  been  gathered,  if  all 
has  been  cast  into  the  mould  of  the  writer's  own 
thoughts,  presented  from  his  point  of  view,  and  arranged 
upon  a  plan  and  method  of  his  own,  the  work  possesses 
the  unity  which  we  maintain.  Thus  Bancroft's  "  History 
of  the  United  States  "  rests  upon  a  multitude  of  author- 
ities which  its  author  consulted  in  the  course  of  its  prep- 
aration ;  the  facts  which  it  records  were  drawn  from  a 
great  variety  of  pre-existing  written  sources ;  and  yet,  as 
we  possess  it,  it  is  the  product  of  one  writer,  who  first 
made  himself  thoroughly  acquainted  with  his  subject, 
and  then  elaborated  it  in  his  own  language  and  accord- 
ing to  his  own  preconceived  plan.  It  would  have  been 
very  different,  if  his  care  had  simply  been  to  weave  to- 
gether his  authorities  in  the  form  of  a  continuous  narra- 
tive, retaining  in  all  cases  their  exact  language,  but  in- 
corporating one  into  another  or  supplementing  one  by 
another,  and  thus  allowing  each  of  his  sources  in  turn  to 
speak  for  itself.  In  this  case  it  would  not  have  been 
Bancroft's  history.  He  would  have  been  merely  the 
compiler  of  a  work  consisting  of  a  series  of  extracts 
from  various  authors.  Such  a  narrative  has  been  made 
by  harmonists  of  the  Gospel  history.  They  have  framed 
an  account  of  all  the  recorded  facts  by  piecing  together 
extracts  from  the  several  gospels  arranged  in  what  is 
conceived  to  be  their  true  chronological  order.  And  the 
result  is  not  a  new  Gospel  history  based  upon  the  several 
Gospels,  nor  is  it  the  original  Gospel  either  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  or  John  ;  but  it  is  a  compound  of  the  whole 
of  them ;  and  it  can  be  taken  apart  paragraph  by  para- 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        61 

graph,  or  sentence  bj  sentence,  and  each  portion  as- 
signed to  the  particular  Gospel  from  which  it  was 
drawn. 

Now  the  question  respecting  the  unity  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  whether  it  is  a  continuous  production  from  a 
single  pen,  whatever  may  have  been  the  sources  from 
which  the  materials  were  taken,  or  whether  it  is  a  com- 
posite production,  made  up  from  various  writings  woven 
together,  the  several  portions  of  which  are  still  capable 
of  being  distinguished,  separated,  and  assigned  to  their 
respective  originals. 

DOCUMENT  HYPOTHESIS. 

The  not  improbable  conjecture  was  expressed  at  an 
early  period  that  there  were  ante-Mosaic  records,  to 
which  Moses  had  access,  and  of  which  he  made  use  in 
preparing  the  book  of  Genesis.  The  history  of  such  a 
remote  antiquity  would  seem  to  be  better  accredited  if  it 
had  a  written  basis  to  rest  upon  than  if  it  had  been  drawn 
solely  from  oral  tradition.  Thus  the  eminent  orthodox 
theologian  and  commentator  Vitringa,  expressed  the 
opinion  in  1707,  in  the  interest  of  the  credibility  of  Gen- 
esis, that  Moses  collected,  digested,  embellished,  and 
supplemented  the  records  left  by  the  fathers  and  pre- 
served among  the  Israelites.  The  peculiarity  of  the 
critical  hypothesis,  with  which  we  are  now  concerned, 
however,  is  the  contention  that  Genesis  was  not  merely 
based  upon  pre-existing  writings,  but  that  it  was  framed 
out  of  those  writings,  which  were  incorporated  in  it  and 
simply  pieced  together,  so  that  each  section  and  paragraph 
and  sentence  preserved  still  its  original  style  and  texture, 
indicative  of  the  source  from  which  it  came ;  and  that 
by  means  of  these  criteria  the  book  of  Genesis  can  be 
taken  apart  and  its  original  sources  reproduced.     The 


62      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

first  suggestion  of  this  possibility  and  tlie  first  attempt 
actually  to  realize  it  by  decomposing  the  book  into  the 
prior  documents  supposed  to  have  been  embedded  in  it, 
was  made  in  1753  by  Astruc,  a  French  physician  of  con- 
siderable learning,  but  of  profligate  life,  in  a  treatise  en- 
titled "  Conjectures  Concerning  the  Original  Memoranda 
which  it  appears  Moses  used  to  Compose  the  Book  of 
Genesis."  ^  This  hypothesis  was  adopted  and  elaborated 
with  great  learning  and  ingenuity  by  Eichhorn,^  the  dis- 
tinguished professor  of  Oriental  literature  at  Gottingen, 
to  whose  skilful  advocacy  it  owed  much  of  its  sudden 
popularity. 

*  Conjectures  sur  les  Memoires  Originaux,  dont  it  paroit  que  Moyse 
s'est  servi  pour  composer  le  Livre  de  la  Genese.  Avec  des  Remarques, 
qui  appuient  ou  qui  eclaircissent  ces  Conjectures.  This  was  published 
anonymously  at  Brussels.  For  an  account  of  the  life  and  character  of 
the  author  see  the  Article  Jean  Astruc,  hy  Dr.  Howard  Osgood,  in 
The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Meciew,  for  January,  1892.  Astruc 
assumes  two  principal  documents,  which  were  used  throughout,  and  are 
distinguished  by  the  employment  of  Elohira  and  Jehovah  respectively  ; 
also  ten  minor  documents  relating  chiefly  to  foreign  nations,  and  not 
immediately  affecting  the  Hebrew  people,  in  which  no  name  of  God  is 
found.  These  may  have  been  of  considerable  extent,  though  Moses 
only  had  occasion  to  make  one  small  extract  from  each.  With  these  he 
classes  likewise  the  story  of  Dinah,  ch.  xxxiv.,  and  the  extra  document 
to  account  for  the  triple  repetitions  in  vii.  18-20  and  21-23  in  the  nar- 
rative of  the  flood.  The  advantages  which  he  claims  for  his  hypothe- 
sis are  that  it  will  account  for  the  alternation  of  the  divine  names  as  well 
as  for  the  repetitions  and  displacements  in  the  narrative.  Occasional 
departures  from  the  exact  chronological  order  are  in  his  view  attributa- 
ble, not  to  any  negligence  on  the  part  of  Moses,  but  to  the  mistakes  of 
transcribers.  These  documents  were,  as  he  supposes,  originally  ar- 
ranged in  parallel  columns  after  the  manner  of  Origen's  Hexapla  ;  but 
the  transcribers,  who  copied  them  in  one  continuous  text,  sometimes 
inserted  paragraphs  in  the  wrong  places, 

'•^  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  von  Johann  Gottfried  Eichhorn. 
First  edition,  1782;  4th  edition,  1823.  He  steadfastly  insists  that 
Moses  is  the  compiler  of  Genesis,  and  the  author  of  the  rest  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, some  interpolations  excepted.  Gramberg,  whose  Libri  Gene- 
seos  secundum  foutes  rite  dignosceudos  Adumbratio  Nova  was  published 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PET^TATEUCH        63 

1.  The  primary  basis  of  this  extraordinary  hypothesis 
was  found  in  the  remarkable  manner  in  which  the  divine 
names  Elohim  (the  Hebrew  term  for  God)  and  Jehovah 
are  used,  particularly  in  the  earliest  portions  of  Genesis, 
whole  paragraphs  and  even  long  sections  making  almost 
exclusive  use  of  one  of  these  names,  while  the  alternate 
sections  make  a  similarly  exclusive  use  of  the  other. 
Thus  in  Gen.  i.  1-ii.  3,  Elohim  occurs  in  almost  every 
verse,  but  no  other  name  of  God  than  this.  But  in  ii. 
4-iii.  24,  God  is  with  few  exceptions  called  Jehovah 
Elohim,  and  in  ch.  iv.  Jehovah.  Then  in  ch.  v.  we  find 
Elohim  again  ;  in  vi.  1-8,  Jehovah,  and  in  the  rest  of  ch. 
vi.,  Elohim,  and  so  on.  This  singular  alternation  was 
remarked  upon  by  some  of  the  early  Christian  fathers,^ 
who  offered  an  explanation  founded  upon  the  Greek  and 
Latin  equivalents  of  these  names,  but  which  is  not  ap- 
plicable to  the  Hebrew  terms  themselves.  Astruc's  as- 
sumption was  that  it  was  due  to  the  peculiar  style  of 
different  writers,  one  of  whom  was  in  the  habit  of  using 
Elohim,  and  another  in  the  habit  of  using  Jehovah,  when 
speaking  of  God.  All  those  paragraphs  and  sections 
which  exclusively  or  predominantly  employ  the  name 
Elohim  were  accordingly  attributed  to  a  writer  denomi- 
nated from  this  circumstance  the  Elohist ;  and  when 
these  paragraphs  were  singled  out  and  put  together,  they 
constituted  what  was  called  the  Elohist  document.  The 
other  writer  w^as  known  as  the  Jehovist,  and  the  sections 
attributed  to  him  made  up  the  Jehovist  document.     It 

in  1828,  substitutes  for  this  faithful  compiler  an  unknown  Redactor, 
who  in  combining  the  Elohist  and  Jehovist  makes  frequent  changes  and 
additions  of  his  own. 

'  Thus  Tertullian  adv.  Hermogenem,  ch.  3,  remarks   that  the  Most. 
High  is  simply  called  "  God"  until  the  world  was  made,  and  his  intel- 
gent  creature,  man,  over  whom   he   had  dominion,  after   which  he  is 
likewise  called  "  Lord."     See   also  Augustin,  De  Genesi  ad  Literam, 
viii.  11. 


64      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

was  accordingly  held  that  Genesis  consisted  of  sections 
taken  alternately  from  two  distinct  documents  by  authors 
of  known  proclivities,  so  far  at  least  as  their  preference 
for  or  exclusive  use  of  one  or  other  of  the  divine  names, 
and  which  existed  and  circulated  in  their  separate  state 
until  they  were  combined  as  they  are  at  present.  This 
hypothesis  is  hence  known  as  the  document  hypothesis, 
since  it  assumes  as  the  sources  of  Genesis  distinct  and 
continuous  documents,  which  are  still  traceable  in  the 
book  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  And  the  first  ar- 
gument adduced  in  its  support,  as  already  stated,  is  the 
interchange  of  divine  names,  each  of  which  is  erected 
into  the  criterion  of  a  separate  document. 

2.  A  second  argument  was  drawn  from  the  alleged 
fact  that  when  the  Elohim  sections  are  sundered  out  and 
put  together,  they  form  a  regularly  constructed  and  con- 
tinuous narrative  without  any  apparent  breaks  or  chasms, 
whence  it  is  inferred  that  they  originally  constituted  one 
document  distinct  from  the  intercalated  Jehovah  sections. 
The  same  thing  was  affirmed,  though  with  more  hesita- 
tion and  less  appearance  of  plausibility,  of  the  Jehovah 
sections  likewise ;  when  these  are  singled  out  and  sev- 
ered from  the  passages  containing  the  name  Elohim,  they 
form  a  tolerably  well-connected  document  likewise. 

3.  A  third  argument  was  drawn  from  parallel  passages 
in  the  two  documents.  The  same  event,  it  is  alleged,  is 
in  repeated  instances  found  twice  narrated  in  successive 
sections  of  Genesis,  once  in  an  Elohist  section,  and 
again  with  some  modifications  or  variations  in  a  Jehovist 
section.  This  is  regarded  as  proof  positive  that  Genesis 
is  not  one  continuous  narrative,  but  that  it  is  made  up 
'from  two  dijBferent  histories.  The  compiler  instead  of 
framing  a  new  narrative  which  should  comprehend  all 
the  particulars  stated  in  both  accounts,  or  blending  the 
two  accounts  by  incorporating  sentences  from  one  in  the 


THE  UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  65 

body  of  the  other,  has  preserved  both  entire,  each  in  its 
integrity  and  in  its  own  proper  form,  by  first  giving  the 
account  of  the  matter  as  it  was  to  be  found  in  one  docu- 
ment, and  subsequently  inserting  the  account  found  in  the 
other.  Thus  Gen.  i.  1-ii.  3  contains  the  account  of  the  cre- 
ation as  given  by  the  Elohist ;  but  although  this  states  how 
the  world  was  made,  and  plants  and  animals  and  men  were 
formed  upon  it,  the  Jehovist  section,  ii.  4,  etc.,  introduces 
a  fresh  account  of  the  making  of  the  man  and  the  wom- 
an, the  production  of  trees  from  the  ground,  and  the 
formation  of  the  inferior  animals.  This  repetition  be- 
trays, it  is  said,  that  we  here  have  before  us  not  one  ac- 
count of  the  creation  by  a  single  writer,  but  two  separate 
accounts  by  different  writers.  So  in  the  nan-ative  of  the 
flood ;  there  is  first  an  account  by  the  Jehovist,  vi.  1-8, 
of  the  wickedness  of  man  and  of  Jehovah's  purpose  to 
destroy  the  earth ;  then  follows,  vi.  9-22,  the  Elohist's 
statement  of  the  wickedness  of  man  and  God's  purpose  to 
destroy  the  earth,  together  with  God's  command  to  Noah 
to  build  the  ark  and  go  into  it  with  his  family,  and  take 
some  of  all  living  animals  into  it ;  in  vii.  1-5,  the  Jeho- 
vist tells  that  Jehovah  commanded  Noah  to  go  with  his 
family  into  the  ark,  and  to  take  every  variety  of  animals 
with  him. 

4.  A  fourth  argument  is  drawn  from  the  diversity  of 
style,  diction,  ideas,  and  aim  which  characterize  these 
two  documents.  It  is  alleged  that  when  these  compo- 
nent parts  of  Genesis  are  separated  and  examined  apart, 
each  will  be  found  to  be  characterized  by  all  the  marks 
which  indicate  diversity  of  origin  and  authorship.  It  is 
confidently  affirmed  that,  wherever  the  Eloliim  sections 
occur  throughout  Genesis,  they  have  certain  peculiarities 
of  diction  and  style  which  clearly  distinguish  them  from 
the  Jehovah  sections ;  and  these  again  have  their  own 
distinctive  characteristics.  The  preference  for  one  di- 
5 


d6     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

vine  name  above  another,  which  has  already  been  spoken 
of  as  a  criterion,  does  not  stand  alone.  There  are  be- 
sides numerous  words  and  phrases  that  are  currently 
used  by  the  Elohist  which  the  Jehovist  never  employs, 
iind  vice  versa.  Thus  the  Elohist,  in  ch.  i.,  uses  the 
phrase  "  beast  of  the  earth,"  and  speaks  of  the  earth 
bringing  forth  plants,  while  the  Jehovist,  in  ch.  ii.,  says 
"  beasts  of  the  field  "  and  ''  plant  of  the  field."  The  Elo- 
hist, in  ch.  i.,  repeatedly  uses  the  word  "  create  " ;  he 
speaks  of  God  creating  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  creat- 
ing the  whales,  and  creating  man.  The  Jeho\dst,  in  ch. 
ii.,  speaks  instead  of  Jehovah  forming  man  and  forming 
the  beasts.  The  Elohist  (ch.  i.)  speaks  of  man  as  male 
and  female ;  the  Jehovist  (ch.  ii.)  says  instead  the  man 
and  his  wife.  The  style  of  the  two  writers  is  equally 
marked ;  that  of  the  Elohist  is  formal,  verbose,  and  repe- 
titious ;  that  of  the  Jehovist  is  easy  and  flowing.  In  ch. 
i.  the  same  stereotyped  phrases  recur  again  and  again, 
and  particulars  are  enumerated  instead  of  including  all 
under  a  general  term.  Thus  ver.  25,  "  God  made  the 
beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind,  and  cattle  after  their 
kind,  and  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the 
earth  after  his  kind."  And  ver.  27,  "  God  created  man 
in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him ; 
male  and  female  created  he  them."  The  Elohist  gives 
God's  command  to  Noah  in  detail  (vi.  18),  "  Thou  shalt 
come  into  the  ark ;  thou,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  wife,  and 
thy  sons'  wives  with  thee ; "  the  Jehovist  simply  says, 
(vii.  1),  *'  Come  thou  and  all  thy  house  into  the  ark." 

Along  with  these  peculiarities  of  diction  and  style,  and 
corroborating  the  conclusion  drawn  from  them,  is  the  di- 
versity in  the  ideas  and  scope  of  the  two  writers.  Thus 
the  Jehovist  makes  frequent  mention  of  altars  and  sacri- 
fices in  the  pre -Mosaic  period;  the  Elohist  is  silent  re- 
specting them  until  their  establishment  at  Sinai.     It  is 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  67 

the  Jeliovist  who  records  the  primeval  sacrifice  of  Cain 
and  Abel,  of  which  the  Elohist  says  nothing.  The  Elo- 
hist  speaks,  in  v.  22,  of  Enoch  walking  with  God,  and  vi. 
9,  of  Noah  walking  with  God,  but  though  he  gives  (ch.  ix.) 
a  detailed  account  of  God's  blessing  Noah,  and  his  cove- 
nant w^ith  him  after  he  came  out  of  the  ark,  he  says  noth- 
ing of  Noah's  sacrifice,  which  the  Jehovist  records  (viii. 
20,  etc).  The  divine  direction  to  Noah  to  take  animals 
into  the  ark  is  given  by  the  Elohist  only  in  general 
terms  ;  God  bade  him  take  two  of  every  sort  (vi.  19,  etc.). 
But  the  Jehovist  informs  us  more  minutely  of  the  dis- 
tinction of  clean  and  unclean  animals  which  then  ex- 
isted, and  that  Jehovah  bade  Noah  take  two  of  each  spe- 
cies of  the  latter,  but  seven  of  the  former,  vii.  2. 

These  arguments,  derived  from  the  alternate  use  of  the 
divine  names,  from  the  alleged  continuity  of  each  docu- 
ment taken  separately,  from  parallel  passages,  and  from 
the  characteristic  differences  of  the  two  writers,  appeared 
to  lend  so  much  plausibility  to  the  Document  Hypothe- 
sis that  it  speedily  rose  to  great  celebrity,  and  was  very 
widely  adopted  ;  and  many  able  and  distinguished  critics 
became  its  advocates.  As  at  first  propounded  it  did  not 
conflict  with  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Its  earliest  defenders,  so  far  from  impugning  the  author- 
ship of  Moses,  were  strenuous  in  maintaining  it.  So  long 
as  the  hypothesis  was  confined  to  Genesis,  to  which  it 
was  at  first  applied,  there  was  no  difficulty  in  assuming 
that  Moses  may  have  incorporated  in  his  history  of  that 
early  period  these  pre-existing  documents  in  any  way 
consistent  with  his  truth  and  inspiration. 

It  was  not  long,  however,  before  it  was  discovered  that 
the  hypothesis  was  capable  of  being  applied  likewise  to 
the  remaining  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  extension 
of  the  hypothesis  brought  it  for  the  first  time  into  colli- 
sion with  the  traditional  belief  of  the  Mosaic  authorship ; 


C8     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

and  this,  with  its  various  modifications,  has  since  been  one 
of  the  favorite  and  principal  weapons  of  those  who  deny 
that  it  was  written  by  Moses.  If  the  entire  Pentateuch 
is  a  compilation  from  pre-existing  documents,  it  was 
plausibly  inferred  that  it  must  be  post-Mosaic.  For  the 
documents  themselves,  inasmuch  as  they  contained  the 
record  of  Moses's  own  times,  could  not  have  been  older 
than  the  Mosaic  age.  And  if  the  Pentateuch  was  sub- 
sequent to  them,  and  framed  out  of  them,  it  seemed  nat- 
ural to  refer  it  to  a  still  later  period ;  though,  it  should 
be  observed,  that  this  by  no  means  necessarily  follows. 
Even  if  the  composite  character  of  the  Pentateuch  could 
be  established  on  purely  literary  grounds,  we  might  still 
suppose  that  the  memoranda  from  which  it  was  pre- 
pared were  drawn  up  under  Moses's  direction  and  with 
his  approval,  and  were  either  put  together  in  their  pres- 
ent form  by  himself,  or  at  least  that  the  completed  work 
passed  under  his  eye  and  received  his  sanction  ;  so  that 
it  would  still  be  possible  to  vindicate  its  Mosaic  origin 
and  authority,  unless  indeed  the  primary  documents 
themselves  belong  to  a  later  time  than  that  of  Moses, 
which  can  never  be  proved. 

The  critics  who  have  held  this  hypothesis,  however, 
commonly  do  regard  them  as  post-Mosaic ;  and  hence 
they  claim  that  it  affords  ocular  demonstration  that  the 
books  traditionally  ascribed  to  Moses  are  not  his.  And 
to  corroborate  this  conclusion  they  appeal  to  Exodus  vi. 
3,  where  God  says  to  Moses,  "I  appeared  unto  Abraham, 
unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  as  God  Almighty,  but  by  my 
name  Jehovah  I  was  not  known  to  them."  They  under- 
stand this  to  be  a  distinct  declaration  that  the  name  Je- 
hovah was  unknown  to  the  patriarchs,  being  of  later  date 
than  the  time  in  which  they  lived,  and  that  it  first  came 
into  use  in  the  days  of  Moses.  It  hence  followed  as  ^ 
logical  necessity  that  the  Jehovist  document,  according  to 


THE   UNITY   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH  69 

the  testimony  of  this  passage,  was  certainly  not  prior  to 
the  time  of  Moses,  for  it  employs  a  name  which  had  no 
existence  previously.  And  it  was  plausibly  urged  that 
this  document  was  probably  post-Mosaic,  for  it  is  charge- 
able with  the  anachronism  of  putting  into  the  mouths  of 
the  patriarchs  the  name  Jehovah,  which  did  not  then 
exist.  This  was  thought  to  be  contradictory  to  the  Elo- 
hist  statement  above  cited,  and  to  betray  a  writer  be- 
longing to  a  period  when  the  name  Jehovah  had  become 
so  familiar  and  so  universal  that  its  recent  origin  was 
forgotten,  and  he  unconsciously  transfers  to  patriarchal 
times  a  designation  current  in  his  own. 

This  anachronism  of  the  Jehovist  led  to  the  suspicion 
of  others  ;  and  since,  as  has  already  been  stated,  it  is 
this  document  which  makes  mention  of  patriarchal  altars 
and  sacrifices  that  are  never  referred  to  by  the  Elohist, 
it  was  suspected  that  here  again  he  had  improperly  trans- 
ferred to  the  patriarchal  age  the  usages  of  his  own  time, 
while  the  Elohist  gave  a  more  accurate  representation  of 
that  early  period  as  it  really  was.  This  was  esteemed,  if 
not  a  contradiction,  yet  a  contrariety  between  the  two 
accounts,  a  diversity  in  the  mode  of  conceiving  the  pe- 
riod whose  history  they  are  recording,  which  reflects  the 
different  personality  of  the  two  writers,  the  views  which 
they  entertained,  and  the  influences  under  which  they 
had  been  trained. 

These  diversities  between  the  Jehovist  and  the  Elo- 
hist took  on  more  and  more  the  character  of  contradic- 
tions, as  the  credit  of  the  Jehovist  for  veracity  and  accu- 
racy was  held  in  less  and  less  esteem.  Every  superficial 
difliculty  was  made  the  pretext  for  fresh  charges  of 
anachronisms,  inaccuracies,  and  contradictions.  The 
text  was  tortured  to  bring  forth  difticulties  where  none 
appeared.  An  especially  fruitful  source  was  found  in 
alleged  parallel  passages  in  the  two  documents.     These 


70      THE  HIGHER   CEITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATj^CJCH 

were  greatly  multiplied  by  pressing  into  the  service  nar^ 
rations  of  matters  quite  distinct,  but  which  bore  a  general 
resemblance  to  each  other.  The  points  of  resemblance  were 
paraded  in  proof  that  the  matters  referred  to  were  iden- 
tical ;  and  then  the  diversities  in  the  two  accounts  were 
pointed   out   as   so  many  contradictions  between  them, 
which  betrayed  the  legendary  and  unreliable  character  of 
one  or  both  the  narratives.     Thus  because  some  of  the 
descendants  of  Cain,  whose  genealogy  is  recorded  by  the 
Jehovist  (Gen.  iv.  17-22),  bear  the  same  or  similar  names 
with  descendants  of  Seth  recorded  by  the  Elohist  (ch.  v.), 
Enoch,  Irad,  Methusael,  and  Lamech  of  one  table  cor- 
responding to  Jared,  Enoch,  Methuselah,  and  Lamech  of 
the  other,  it  was  concluded  that  these  are  only  variants 
of  the  same  identical  genealogy,  which  one  writer  has  at- 
tached to  one  of  the  sons  of  Adam,  and  the  other  to  an- 
other ;  and  that  every  divergence  in  the  two  lists  is  a 
discrepancy  involving  an  error  on  one  side  or  on  the 
other,  if  not  in  both.    So  in  ch.  xii.  the  Jehovist  tells  how 
Abram,  ai3prehensive  that  the  monarch  of  the  country  in 
which  he  was  would  be  attracted  by  his  wife's  beauty, 
prevaricated  by  saying  that  she  was  his  sister,  what  per- 
ils thence  arose  to  both,  and  how  they  were  finally  extri- 
cated.    In  ch.  XX.  the  Elohist  relates  a  similar  story  of 
prevarication,  peril,  and  deliverance.     The  same  event,  it 
is  alleged,  must  be  the  basis  of  both  accounts,  but  there 
is  a  hopeless  contradiction  between  them.     The  former 
declares  that  the  occurrence  took  place  in  Egypt,  and 
that  Pharaoh  was  a  party  to  the  transaction ;  the  latter 
transfers  the  scene  to  the  land  of  the  Philistines  and  the 
court  of  Abimelech.     And  to  complicate  the  matter  still 
further,  the    Jehovist  gives  yet   another  version  of  the 
same  story  in  ch.   xxvi.,  according  to  which  it  was  not 
Abram  but  Isaac  who  thus  declared  his  wife  to  be  his 
sister,  running  an  imminent  hazard  by  so  doing,  but 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        71 

making  a  fortunate  escape.  According  to  the  Elohist 
(xxi.  22-32),  Abraham  had  a  difficulty  with  Abimelech  in 
respect  to  a  well  of  water,  which  was  amicably  settled  by 
a  covenant,  in  memory  of  which  he  gave  name  to  Beer- 
sheba.  The  Jehovist  (xxvi.  17-33)  relates  a  similar  story 
of  strife  concerning  wells,  a  visit  by  Abimelech,  an  agree- 
ment with  him,  and  the  naming  of  Beersheba  in  conse- 
quence ;  but  he  says  that  it  was  not  Abraham  but  Isaac 
who  was  concerned  in  it. 


FRAGMENT    HYPOTHESIS. 

Meanwhile  a  more  extreme  disintegration  found  favor 
with  Vater  ^  (1805),  Hartmann '  (1831),  and  others,  who 
advocated  what  is  known  as  the  Fragment  Hypothesis. 
This  may  be  fitly  characterized  as  the  Document  Hypo- 
thesis run  mad.  It  is  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  furnished 
by  the  more  consistent  and  thorough-going  application 
of  the  principles  and  methods  of  its  predecessor.  In- 
stead of  two  continuous  documents  pieced  together,  para- 
graph by  paragraph,  to  constitute  the  Pentateuch  as  we 
now  have  it,  each  paragraph  or  section  is  now  traced  to 
a  separate  and  independent  source.  The  compiler  was 
not   limited   to   two  writings   covering   alike  the  entire 

'  Commentar  iiber  den  Pentateuch  von  Johann  Severin  Vater.  1st 
and  2d  Part,  1802  ;  3d  Part,  1805.  This  embodies  many  of  the  Explan- 
atory Notes  and  Critical  Remarks  of  Rev.  Alexander  Geddes,  with 
whose  views  he  is  in  entire  accord.  Vater  finds  that  Genesis  is  com- 
posed of  thirty-eight  fragments,  varying  in  length  from  four  or  five 
verses  to  several  chapters.  The  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
similarly  disintegrated.  In  fact,  the  legislation  is  the  favorite  domain 
of  the  Fragment  Hypothesis,  as  the  history  furnishes  the  principal 
material  for  the  Document  Hypothesis. 

^  Historisch-kritische  Forschungen  tlber  die  Bildung,  das  Zeitalter 
und  den  Plan  der  fiinf  Biicher  Mose's,  nebst  einer  beurtheilenden 
Einleitung  und  einer  genauen  Charakteristik  der  hebriiischen  Sagen 
uud  Mytheu,  von  Anton  Theodor  Hartmann. 


72      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

period  that  lie  proposed  to  treat,  but  had  before  him 
all  that  he  could  gather  of  every  sort  relating  to  his  sub- 
ject, some  of  which  230ssibly  were  mere  scraps,  others  of 
larger  compass,  some  recording,  it  may  be,  but  a  single 
incident,  others  more  comprehensive,  and  he  adopted 
one  passage  from  one,  another  from  another,  and  so 
on  throughout.  Sometimes  two  or  more  fragments  may 
have  been  taken  from  the  same  original  work,  but  this 
cannot  be  i3ositively  affirmed.  And  it  would  be  vain  to 
attempt  to  inquire  into  the  extent,  character,  and  aim  of 
the  writings  from  which  they  were  severally  extracted. 
All  that  we  know  of  them  is  derived  from  such  portions 
as  the  compiler  has  seen  fit  to  preserve. 

The  arguments  adduced  in  support  of  the  Fragment 
Hypothesis  were  substantially  identical  with  those  which 
had  been  urged  in  favor  of  the  Document  Hypothesis. 
And  assuming  the  soundness  of  those  arguments,  this  is 
the  inevitable  consequence.  Admit  the  legitimacy  of 
this  disintegrating  process,  and  there  is  no  limit  to  which 
it  may  not  be  carried  at  the  pleasure  of  the  operator ; 
and  it  might  be  added,  there  is  no  work  to  which  it 
might  not  be  applied.  Any  book  in  the  Bible,  or  out  of 
the  Bible,  could  be  sliced  and  splintered  in  the  same  way 
and  by  the  same  method  of  argument.  Let  a  similarly 
minute  and  searching  examination  be  instituted  into  the 
contents  of  any  modern  book.  Let  any  one  page  be  com- 
pared with  any  other,  and  every  word,  and  form  of  ex- 
pression, and  grammatical  construction,  and  rhetorical 
figure  in  one  that  does  not  occur  in  the  other  be  noted 
as  difference  of  diction  and  style ;  let  every  incident  in 
one  that  has  its  counterpart  in  the  other  be  paraded  as  a 
parallel  section  evidencing  diversity  of  origin  and  author- 
ship, and  every  conception  in  one  which  has  not  its 
counterpart  in  the  other  as  establishing  a  diversity  in 
the  ideas  of  the  authors  of  the  two  pages  respectively; 


THE   UNITY   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH  73 

let  every  conclusion  arrived  at  on  one  page  that  does  not 
appear  on  the  other  argue  different  tendencies  in  the 
two  writers,  different  aims  with  which,  and  different  in- 
fluences under  which,  they  severally  wrote,  and  nothing 
would  be  easier,  if  this  method  of  proof  be  allowed,  than 
to  demonstrate  that  each  successive  page  came  from  a 
different  pen. 

The  very  same  process  by  which  the  Pentateuch  is  de- 
composed into  documents,  can  with  like  facility  divide 
these  documents,  and  subdivide  them,  and  then  subdi- 
vide them  again.  Indeed  the  advocates  of  the  Docu- 
ment Hypothesis  may  here  be  summoned  as  witnesses 
against  themselves.  They  currently  admit  different 
Elohists  and  Jehovists,  and  successive  variant  editions 
of  each  document,  and  a  whole  school  of  priestly  and 
Deviteronomic  diaskeuasts  and  redactors,  thus  rivalling  in 
their  refinements  the  multitudinous  array  of  the  fragmen- 
tary critics.  And  in  fact  the  extent  to  which  either  may 
go  in  this  direction  is  determined  by  purely  subjective 
considerations.  The  only  limitation  is  that  imposed 
by  the  taste  or  fancy  of  the  critic.  If  the  repetitions 
or  parallel  sections,  alleged  to  be  found  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, require  the  assumption  of  distinct  documents, 
like  repetitions  occurring  in  each  individual  document 
prove  it  to  be  composite.  The  very  same  sort  of  con- 
trarieties or  contradictions  which  are  made  a  pretext  for 
sundering  the  Pentateuch,  can  furnish  an  equally  plausi- 
ble reason  for  sundering  each  of  the  documents.  And  if 
certain  criteria  are  regarded  as  characteristic  of  a  given 
document,  and  their  absence  from  sections  attributed  to 
the  other  is  held  to  prove  that  they  are  by  a  different  hand 
from  the  former,  why  does  not  the  same  rule  apply  to 
the  numerous  sections  of  the  first-named  document,  from 
which  its  own  so-called  characteristic  words  and  phrases 
are  likewise  absent  ? 


74     THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

The  titles  and  subscriptions  attached  to  genealogies 
and  legal  sections  supplied  an  additional  argument,  of 
which  the  advocates  of  the  Fragment  Hypothesis  sought 
to  avail  themselves.  Such  titles  as  the  following  are 
prefixed  to  indicate  the  subject  of  the  section  that  fol- 
lows :  "  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and 
of  the  earth,"  Gen.  ii.  4.  "  This  is  the  book  of  the  gen- 
erations of  Adam,"  v.  1.  "  These  are  the  names  of  the 
sons  of  Levi  according  to  their  generations,"  Ex.  vi.  16. 
"  This  is  the  law  of  the  trespass-offering,"  Lev.  vii.  1. 
"  This  is  the  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace-offerings,"  ver. 
11.  "  These  are  the  journeys  of  the  children  of  Israel," 
Num.  xxxiii.  1.  Or  subscriptions  are  added  at  the  close 
suggestive  of  the  contents  of  the  section  that  precedes, 
such  as  "  These  are  the  families  of  the  sons  of  Noah 
after  their  generations  in  their  nations,"  Gen.  x.  32. 
*'  These  be  the  sons  of  Leah,"  xlvi.  15.  "  These  are  the 
sons  of  Zilpah,"  ver.  18.  "  These  are  the  sons  of  Eachel," 
ver.  22.  "  This  is  the  law  of  the  burnt-offering,  of  the 
meal-offering,  and  of  the  sin-offering,"  etc..  Lev.  vii.  37, 
38.  "This  is  the  law  of  the  plague  of  leprosy,"  etc.,  xiii. 
59.  These  indicate  divisions  in  the  subject-matter,  and 
mark  the  beginning  or  end  of  paragraphs  or  sections, 
and  contribute  to  clearness  by  brief  statements  of  their 
general  purport,  but  they  do  not  prove  that  these  sec- 
tions ever  had  a  separate  and  independent  existence 
apart  from  the  book  in  which  they  are  now  found,  or  that 
different  sections  proceeded  from  different  authors,  any 
more  than  a  like  conclusion  could  be  drawn  from  the 
books  and  chapters  into  which  modern  works  are  di- 
vided. 

The  extravagance  and  absurdity  of  the  Fragment 
Hypothesis  could  not  long  escape  detection,  for — 

1.  It  involves  the  assumption  of  a  numerous  body  of 
writings  regarding  the  Mosaic  and  ante-Mosaic  periods 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  75 

of  which  there  is  no  other  evidence,  and  which  is  out  of 
all  proportion  to  the  probabilities  of  the  case.  Every 
several  paragraph  or  section  is  supposed  to  represent  a 
distinct  work,  implying  a  literary  activity  and  a  fertility 
of  authorship  which  is  not  only  assumed  on  slender  and 
inadequate  grounds,  but  of  which  not  another  fragment 
survives,  to  Avliich  no  allusion  is  made,  whether  in  the 
Pentateuch  itself  or  elsewhere,  and  not  a  hint  or  a  trace 
is  anywhere  preserved  of  its  ever  having  existed. 

2.  A  congeries  of  fragments  borrowed  from  diverse 
quarters  could  only  form  a  body  of  disconnected  anec- 
dotes or  a  heterogeneous  miscellany.  It  could  not  possi- 
bly result  in  the  production  of  such  a  work  as  the  Pen- 
tateuch, which  is  a  coherent  whole,  possessing  orderly 
arrangement  in  accordance  with  a  well-devised  plan, 
Avhich  is  consistently  carried  out,  with  a  continuous  and 
connected  narrative,  with  no  abrupt  transitions,  and  no 
such  contrasts  or  discords  as  would  inevitably  arise  from 
piecing  together  what  was  independently  conceived  and 
written  by  different  persons  at  different  times,  and  with 
no  regard  to  mutual  adjustment.  As  in  oriental  writings 
generally  the  successive  portions  are  more  loosely  bound 
together  in  outward  form  than  is  customary  in  modern 
occidental  style  ;  but  the  matter  of  the  record  is  through- 
out continuous,  and  one  constant  aim  is  steadfastly  pur- 
sued. The  breaks  and  interruptions  which  are  alleged 
to  exist  in  the  narrative,  such  as  the  failure  to  record  in 
full  the  abode  in  Egypt,  the  private  life  of  Moses,  or  the 
forty  years'  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  are  no  indica- 
tions of  a  lack  of  unity,  but  the  reverse ;  for  they  show 
with  what  tenacity  the  writer  adhered  to  his  proper 
theme,  and  excluded  everything  which  did  not  belong 
to  it. 

3.  Still  further,  the  Pentateuch  is  not  only  possessed 
of  a  demonstrable  unity  of  structure,  which  renders  its 


76      THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

fragmentary  origin  inconceivable,  but  there  are  tlirougli- 
out  manifest  allusions  from  one  part  to  another,  one  sec- 
tion either  referring  in  express  terms  to  what  is  con- 
tained in  others,  or  implying  their  existence,  being  based 
upon  those  that  precede  and  unintelligible  without  them, 
and  presupposing  those  that  follow.  The  minute  exam- 
inations to  which  this  very  hypothesis  has  driven  the 
friends  of  truth  have  shown  that  such  explicit  or  tacit 
allusions  are  traceable  everywhere ;  and  wherever  they 
occur  they  make  it  clear  that  the  writer  must  have  been 
cognizant  of  the  paragraphs  alluded  to,  and  have  felt  at 
liberty  to  assume  that  his  readers  were  acquainted  with 
them  likewise.  Of  course  this  is  quite  inconsistent  with 
the  notion  that  each  of  these  paragraphs  came  from  a 
different  source,  and  was  written  independently  of  the 
rest. 

It  was  refuted  by  Ewald  ^  in  his  earliest  publication, 
which  still  deserves  careful  study,  and  still  more  thor- 
oughly by  F.  H.  Eanke.2 

SUPPLEMENT  HYPOTHESIS. 

Bepelled  by  the  inconsistencies  and  incongruities  of 
the  Fragment  Hypothesis,  Bleek,  Tuch,  Stahelin,  De 
Wette,  KnobeP  and  others  advocated  what  is  known  asi 

^  Die  Composition  der  Genesis  kritiscli  Untersuclit,  von  Dr.  H.  A. 
Ewald,  1823. 

'^  Uutersucliungen  iiber  den  Pentateuch,  von  Dr.  Friedrich  Heinrich 
Ranke,  Pfarrer.     Vol.  i.,  1834;  Vol.  ii.,  1840. 

^  The  matured  \iews  of  Bleek  are  given  in  the  posthumous  publica- 
tion, Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1860.  In  his  opinion,  "after 
Ex.  vi.  2-8,  the  determination  of  Elohistic  constituents,  if  not  impos- 
sible, is  incomparably  more  difficult  and  uncertain  than  in  the  preceding 
history."  4th  Edit.,  p.  92.  He  maintained  that  there  was  much  in  the 
Pentateuch  that  was  genuinely  Mosaic,  and  especially  that  many  of  the 
laws  proceeded  from  Moses  in  the  form  in  which  they  are  there  pre- 
served, and  were  committed  to  writing  by  Moses  himself,  or  at  least  iu 


THE   UITITY   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH  77 

the  Supplement  Hypothesis.  This  is  a  modification  of 
the  Documentary,  not  on  the  side  of  a  still  further  and  in- 
definite division,  but  on  the  opposite  side  of  a  closer 
union.  It  was  consequently  a  reaction  in  the  right  direc- 
tion ;  a  confession  that  what  had  been  sundered  without 
limit,  as  though  its  several  parts  were  void  of  all  coher- 
ence, really  do  belong  together ;  it  is  an  admission,  so 
far  as  it  goes,  of  the  cogency  of  the  arguments,  by  Avhich 
the  various  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  can  be  shown  to  be 
linked  together. 

The  Supplement  Hypothesis  retained  the  Elohist  and 
the  Jehovist  of  the  older  theory  ;  but,  instead  of  making 
them  the  authors  of  distinct  and  independent  documents, 
which  were  subsequently  combined  and  pieced  together 
by  a  diflerent  hand,  it  supposed  that  the  Elohist  first  pre- 
pared his  treatise,  which  lies  at  the  basis  throughout  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  constitutes  its  groundwork.  The 
Jehovist,  who  lived  later,  undertook  to  prepare  an  en- 
larged edition  of  this  older  history.  He  accordingly  re- 
tained all  that  was  in  the  earlier  work,  preserving  its 
form  and  language,  only  introducing  into  it  and  incor- 

tlie  Mosaic  age.  Komraentar  iiber  die  Genesis,  von  Dr.  Friedrich 
Tuch,  1838.  Kritiseiie  Untersuclinngen  iiber  den  Pentateuch,  die 
Biicher  Josua,  Ricliter,  Samuels  und  der  Konige,  von  J.  J.  Stalielin, 
1843.  Stiihelin  is  peculiar  in  beginning"  his  literary  analysis  with  the 
laws,  and  then  applying  the  results  to  tho  historical  portions  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  the  Book  of  Joshua.  De  Wette,  who  at  first  seemed  to 
waver  between  the  Fragment  and  Document  Hypothesis,  finally  fell  in 
with  the  supplementary  view.  His  latest  views  are  given  in  the  sixth 
edition  of  his  Lehrbuch  derHistorisch-kritischen  Einleitung,  1845.  Die 
Genesis  erklart  von  August  Knobel,  1852.  This  was  followed  in  suc- 
cession by  commentaries  on  the  remaining  books  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
on  Joshua.  Knobel  endeavored  to  remove  the  difficulty  arising  from  the 
large  number  of  passages  in  which  the  characteristics  of  the  Elohist  and 
Jehovist  were  blended,  by  assuming  that  they  belonged  to  the  Jehovist, 
who  in  them  drew  from  two  antecedent  sources,  which  he  denominated 
the  Rechtsbuch  and  the  Kriegsbuch.  It  is  the  same  difficulty  that  Hup- 
feld  sought  to  relieve  by  his  assumption  of  a  second  Elohist. 


78      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

porating  with  it  sections  of  his  own,  supplying  omissions, 
and  amplifying  what  needed  to  be  more  fully  stated, 
thus  supplementing  it  by  means  of  such  materials  as  were 
within  his  reach,  and  making  such  additions  as  he  es- 
teemed important. 

This  form  of  the  hypothesis  not  only  provides,  as  the 
old  document  theory  had  done,  for  those  evidences  of 
unity  which  bind  the  various  Elohim  passages  to  one 
another,  and  also  the  various  Jehovah  passages.  But  it 
accounts  still  further  for  the  fact,  inexplicable  on  the 
document  theory,  that  the  Jehovah  sections  are  related 
to  the  Elohim  sections,  presuppose  them,  or  contain  direct 
and  explicit  allusions  to  them.  This  is  readily  explained 
by  the  Supplement  Hypothesis ;  for  not  only  would 
the  Elohist  and  Jehovist  be  aware  of  what  they  had  re- 
spectively written,  or  of  what  they  intended  to  write  in 
the  course  of  their  work,  but  in  addition  the  Jehovist  is 
supposed  to  have  the  treatise  of  the  Elohist  in  his  hands, 
to  which  all  that  he  writes  himself  is  merely  supplement- 
al. It  is  quite  natural  for  him,  therefore,  to  make  allu- 
sions to  what  the  Elohist  had  written.  But  it  is  not  so 
easy  to  account  for  the  fact,  which  is  also  of  repeated  oc- 
currence, that  the  Elohim  passages  allude  to  or  presup- 
pose the  contents  of  Jehovah  passages.  Here  the  theory 
signally  breaks  down.  For  by  the  hypothesis  the  Elo- 
hist wrote  first  an  independent  production,  without  any 
knowledge  of,  and,  of  course,  without  the  possibility  of 
making  any  reference  to  the  additions  which  the  Jeho- 
vist was  subsequently  to  make. 

Another  halting-place  in  this  hypothesis  was  the  im- 
possibility of  making  out  any  consistent  view  of  the  rela- 
tion in  which  the  Jehovist  stood  to  the  antecedent  labors 
of  the  Elohist.  The  great  proof,  which  was  insisted  upon, 
of  the  existence  of  the  Jehovist  as  distinct  from  the  Elo- 
hist, and  supplementing  the  treatise  of  the  latter,  lay  in 


THE  UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  79 

the  diversity  of  style  and  thought  which  are  alleged  to 
characterize  these  two  classes  of  sections  respectively. 
Hence  it  was  necessary  to  assume  that  the  Jehovist  faith- 
fully retained  the  language  of  the  Elohim  document  un- 
altered, and  that  his  own  peculiarities  were  limited  to  the 
sections  which  he  introduced  himself,  and  that  there  they 
were  exhibited  freely  and  without  reserve.  It  is  fre- 
quently the  case,  however,  that  the  ideas  or  diction  which 
have  been  represented  to  belong  to  one  of  these  classes 
of  sections  are  found  likewise  in  the  other  class.  Thus, 
Elohim  passages  are  found  to  contain  those  words  and 
phrases  which  have  been  alleged  to  characterize  the  Jeho- 
vist,  and  to  contain  ideas  and  statements  which  are  said 
to  be  peculiarly  Jehovistic.  Here  it  is  necessary  to  affirm 
that  the  Jehovist,  instead  of  faithfully  transcribing  the 
Elohim  document,  has  altered  its  language  and  inserted 
expressions  or  ideas  of  his  own.  Again,  Jehovah  pas- 
sages are  found  in  which  those  characteristics  of  style 
and  thought  appear  which  are  elsewhere  claimed  as 
peculiar  to  the  Elohist.  This  is  explained  by  saying 
that  the  Jehovist  in  such  cases  has  imitated  the  style  or 
adopted  the  ideas  of  the  Elohist,  and  has  sought  to  make 
his  own  additions  conform  as  far  as  possible  to  the  char- 
acteristic style  of  the  work  which  he  is  supplementing. 
Again,  while  it  is  alleged  that  the  Elohim  and  Jehovah 
passages  are  for  the  most  part  clearly  distinguishable, 
there  are  instances  in  which  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impos- 
sible, to  draw  a  sharp  line  of  demarcation  between  con- 
tiguous Elohim  and  Jehovah  passages,  and  to  determine 
precisely  where  one  ends  and  the  other  begins.  Here 
the  Jehovist  is  thought  to  have  used  art  to  cover  up  his 
additions.  He  has  fitted  them  with  such  care  and  skill 
to  the  work  of  his  predecessor  that  the  point  of  jimction 
cannot  be  discerned,  and  it  has  been  made  to  look  like 
one  continuous  composition.     Instead  of  allowing,  as  in 


so     THE  HIGHER   CRITICIS:M   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

other  instances,  his  insertions  to  remain  visibly  distinct 
from  the  original  document,  he  has  acted  as  if  he  desired 
to  confuse  his  additions  with  the  pre-existing  work,  and 
to  make  their  separation  impossible. 

Now,  apart  from  the  fact  that  these  attempted  explana- 
tions of  phenomena  at  variance  with  the  primary  hy- 
pothesis are  merely  shifts  and  subterfuges  to  evade  the 
difficulty  which  they  create,  and  that  this  is  bringing 
unproved  hypotheses  to  support  a  hypothesis,  every 
fresh  addition  making  the  superstructure  weaker  instead 
of  confirming  it,  the  view  which  is  thus  presented  of  the 
Jehovist  is  inconsistent  with  itself.  At  one  time  we 
must  suppose  him  to  allow  the  most  obvious  diversity  of 
style  and  ideas  between  the  Elohist  sections  and  his  own 
without  the  slightest  concern  or  any  attempt  at  producing 
conformity ;  at  others  he  modifies  the  language  of  the 
Elohist,  or  carefully  copies  him  in  the  sections  which  he 
adds  himself  in  order  to  effect  this  conformity,  though 
no  special  motive  can  be  assigned  for  this  difference  in 
his  conduct.  He  sometimes  leaves  his  additions  uncon- 
nected with  the  original  work  which  he  is  supplement- 
ing ;  at  other  times  he  weaves  them  in  so  adroitly  as  to 
create  the  appearance  of  continuity,  and  this  again  with- 
out any  assignable  motive.  A  hypothetical  personage, 
who  has  to  be  represented  by  turns  as  artless  and  artful, 
as  an  honest  reporter  and  a  designing  interpolator,  as 
skilful  and  a  bungler,  as  greatly  concerned  about  a  con- 
formity of  style  and  thought  in  some  passages,  of  which 
he  is  wholly  regardless  in  others,  and  of  whose  existence 
we  have  no  other  evidence  than  that  afforded  by  these 
contradictory  allegations  respecting  him,  can  scarcely  be 
said  to  have  his  reality  established  thus.  And  a  hy- 
pothesis which  is  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  bolstering 
itself  up  in  this  way  has  not  yet  reached  firm  foot- 
ing. 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  81 

Kurtz  furnished  the  best  refutation  in  detail  of  the 
critical  analysis  adopted  by  the  advocates  of  the  Supple- 
ment Hypothesis.  The  unity  and  Mosaic  authorship  of 
Genesis  were  also  ably  defended  by  Drechsler,  and  that 
of  the  entire  Pentateuch  by  Havernick  and  Keil.  The 
most  complete  thesaurus  in  reply  to  objections  is  that  of 
Hengstenberg,  upon  whom  Welte  is  largely  dependent.^ 


CRYSTALLIZATION    HYPOTHESIS. 

The  simplicity  of  the  Supplement  Hypothesis,  which 
w^as  its  chief  recommendation,  proved  inadequate  to  re- 
lieve the  complications  which  beset  the  path  of  the  divi- 
sive critics.  Attempts  to  remedy  these  inconveniences 
were  accordingly  made  in  different  lines  by  Ewald  and 
by  Hupfeld,  both  of  whom,  but  particularly  the  latter, 
contributed  to  smooth  the  way  for  their  successors. 
Ewald's  maiden  publication,  in  1823,  was  directed  against 
the  extreme  disintegration  of  the  Fragment  Hypothesis. 


*  Beitrage  zur  Vertheidigung  iind  Begrlmdiing  der  Einheit  des  Pen- 
tateuches,  von  Joli.  Heiiir.  Kurtz,  Erster  Beitrag,  Nachweis  der  Eiulieit 
von  Gen,  i.-iv.,  1844.  This  preliminary  essay  was  followed  in  1846  by 
his  complete  and  masterly  treatise  Die  Einheit  der  Genesis.  Unfort- 
unately Kurtz  was  subsequently  induced  to  yield  the  position,  which 
he  had  so  successfully  maintained,  in  his  Geschichte  des  Alten  Bundes, 
and  to  admit  that  the  Pentateuch  did  not  receive  its  final  form  until 
the  generation  succeeding  that  of  Moses.  Die  Einheit  und  Aechtheit 
der  Genesis  von  Dr.  Moritz  Drechsler,  1838.  Handbuch  der  historisch- 
kritischen  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  von  H.  A.  Ch.  Havernick, 
Part  I.,  Section  2,  1837.  Lehrbuch  der  historisch  kritischen  Ein- 
leitung in  die  kanonischen  Schriften  des  Alten  Testamentes,  von 
Karl  Friedrich  Keil,  1853.  Die  Authentie  des  Pentateuches  erwieseu 
von  Ernst  Wilhelm  Hengstenberg,  vol.  i.,  1836  ;  vol.  ii.,  1839.  Nach- 
mosaisches  im  Pentateuch,  beleuchtet  von  Dr.  Benedikt  Welte,  1841. 
Also  his  important  additions  and  corrections  to  Herbst's  Einleitung, 
which  he  edited,  and  of  which  the  first  division  of  the  second  part,  con- 
taining the  Introduction  to  the  Pentateuch,  appeared  in  1843. 
6 


82      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

His  own  scheme,  proposed  twenty  years  later/  has  been 
appropriately  called  the  Crystallization  Hypothesis. 
This  is  a  modification  of  the  Supplementary  by  increasing 
the  number  engaged  in  supplementing  from  one  to  a  series 
successively  operating  at  distinct  periods.  The  nucleus, 
or  most  ancient  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  his  opinion, 
consisted  of  the  remnants  of  four  primitive  treatises  now 
existing  only  in  fragments  embedded  in  the  various 
strata  which  were  subsequently  accumulated  around 
them.  This  was  followed  in  the  second  place  by  what 
he  calls  the  Book  of  the  Origins,  and  this  by  what  he 
denominates  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  prophetic  nar- 
rators, each  of  whom  in  succession  added  his  accretion  to 
what  had  been  previously  recorded,  and  the  last  of  whom 
worked  over  all  that  preceded,  together  with  his  own  ad- 
ditions and  alterations,  into  one  continuous  work.  Then 
the  Deuteronomist  wrote  Deuteronomy,  which  was  first 
issued  as  an  independent  publication,  but  was  sub- 
sequently incorporated  with  the  work  of  his  predeces- 
sors. And  thus  the  Pentateuch,  or  rather  the  Hexateuch, 
for  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua  were  regarded  by  him,  as 
by  the  majority  of  advanced  modern  critics  generally,  as 
one  work — thus  the  Hexateuch  slowly  grew  to  its  present 
dimensions,  a  vast  conglomerate,  including  these  various 
accessions  made  in  the  course  of  many  centuries. 


MODIFIED   DOCUMENT  HYPOTHESIS. 

Hupfeld^  undertook  to  remove  the  obstacles,  which 
blocked  the  way  of  the  Supplement  Hypothesis,  in    a 

'  Heinricli  Ewald,  Gescliiclite  des  Volkes  Israel  bis  Christus,  vol.  i. ,  p. 
60  sqq.  1843. 

'^  Die  Quellen  der  Genesis  und  die  Art  ihrer  Zusammeiisetzung  von 
neuem  untersucht,  von  D.  Hermann  Hupfeld,  1853.  The  existence  of  a 
second  Eloliist  liad  been  maintained  long  before,  and  a  partition  made 


THE  UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  83 

different  manner  ;  not  by  introducing  fresh  supplements, 
but  by  abandoning  the  supplementing  process  altogether, 
and  falling  back  upon  the  Document  Hypothesis,  of  which 
he  proposed  an  important  modification.  He  aimed 
chiefly  to  establish  two  things  :  First,  that  the  Jehovist 
sections  were  not  disconnected  additions  to  a  pre-exist- 
ing document,  but  possessed  a  continuity  and  indepen- 
dence, which  shows  that  they  must  have  constituted  a 
separately  existing  document.  In  order  to  this  he  at- 
tempted to  bridge  over  the  breaks  and  chasms  by  the  aid 
of  scattered  clauses  arbitrarily  sundered  from  their  con- 
text in  intervening  Elohim  sections,  and  thus  made  a 
shift  to  preserve  a  scanty  semblance  of  continuity.  In 
the  second  place,  he  maintained  the  composite  character 
of  the  Elohist  sections,  and  that  they  constituted  not  one 
but  two  documents.  The  troublesome  passages,  which 
corresponded  neither  with  the  characteristics  of  the  Elo- 
hist nor  the  Jehovist,  but  appeared  to  combine  them  both, 
were  alleged  to  be  the  product  of  a  third  writer,  who 
while  he  used  the  name  Elohim  had  the  diction  and  other 
peculiarities  of  the  Jehovist,  and  whom  he  accordingly 
called  the  second  Elohist.  Upon  this  scheme  there  were 
three  independent  documents ;  that  of  the  first  Elohist, 
the  second  Elohist,  and  the  Jehovist.  And  these  were 
put  together  in  their  present  form  by  a  redactor  who 
allowed  himself  the    liberty   of  inserting,    retrenching, 

on  this  basis  by  Ilgen  in  Die  Urkunden  des  ersten  Buchs  von  Moses  in 
ilirer  Urgestalt,  1798  ;  but  it  met  no  approval  at  the  time.  Eduard 
Boehmer,  in  Das  Erste  Buch  der  Thora,  adopted  the  scheme  of  Hupfeld, 
though  differing  materially  in  many  points  in  the  details  of  the  analysis. 
E.  Schrader,  in  editing  the  eighth  edition  of  De  Wette's  Introduction,  in 
1869,  follows  the  same  general  scheme,  with  some  modifications  of  the 
analysis.  He  designates  the  authors  of  the  documents  as  the  Annal- 
istic,  the  Theocratic,  and  the  Prophetic  Narrators,  corresponding  sever* 
ally  to  the  first  and  second  Elohists  and  the  Jehovist  of  Hupfeld's  no- 
menclature. 


84     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

modifying,  transposing,  and  combining  at  his  own  pleas- 
ure. All  references  from  one  document  to  the  contents 
of  another,  and  in  general  any  phenomena  that  conflict 
with  the  requirements  of  the  hypothesis,  are  ascribed  to 
the  redactor. 

There  are  several  halting-places  in  this  scheme  of  Hup- 
feld.  (1)  One  is  that  the  creation  of  a  second  Elohist 
destroys  the  continuity  and  comj)leteness  of  the  first. 
The  second  Elohist  is  supposed  to  begin  abruptly  with 
the  twentieth  chapter  of  Genesis.  From  that  point  on- 
ward to  the  end  of  the  book,  with  the  exception  of  cli. 
xxiii.  which  records  the  death  and  burial  of  Sarah,  the 
great  body  of  the  Elohim  passages  are  given  to  the  second 
Elohist,  and  nothing  reserved  for  the  lirst  but  occasional 
disconnected  scraps,  which  never  could  have  formed  a 
separate  and  independent  record,  and  which,  moreover, 
are  linked  with  and  imply  much  that  is  assigned  to  the 
other  documents.  So  that  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that 
this  document  once  contained  the  very  matter  which  has 
been  sundered  from  it.  These  scattered  points  simply 
outline  the  history,  apart  from  which  they  have  no  value 
and  no  meaning.  Severed  from  the  body  of  the  narra- 
tive to  which  they  are  attached  they  are  an  empty  frame 
without  contents.  This  frame  only  exists  for  the  sake  of 
the  historical  material,  to  which  it  is  adjusted  and  indis- 
solubly  belongs. 

(2)  It  is  also  a  suspicious  circumstance  that  the  first 
Elohist  breaks  off  almost  entirely  so  near  the  point  where 
the  second  Elohist  begins.  All  Elohist  passages  before 
Gen.  XX.  are  given  to  the  first  Elohist ;  all  after  that,  with 
trifling  exceptions,  to  the  second  Elohist.  This  looks 
more  like  the  severance  of  what  was  once  continuous, 
than  the  disentangling  of  documents  once  separate  which 
the  redactor  had  worked  together  section  by  section  in 
compiHng  his  history. 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH  85 

(3)  Another  suspicious  circumstance  is  the  intricate 
manner  in  which  the  Jehovist  and  second  Elohist  are 
thought  to  be  combined.  In  many  passages  they  are  so 
intimately  blended  that  they  cannot  be  separated.  And 
in  general  it  is  admitted  to  be  impossible  to  establish 
any  clearly  defined  criteria  of  language,  style,  or  thought 
between  them.  This  has  the  appearance  of  a  factitious 
division  of  what  is  really  the  product  of  a  single  writer. 
There  is  no  reason  of  any  moment,  whether  in  the  dic- 
tion or  in  the  matter,  for  assuming  that  the  Jehovist  and 
the  second  Elohist  were  distinct  writers. 

(4)  It  is  indeed  claimed  that  the  first  Elohist  is 
clearly  distinguishable  in  diction  and  in  matter  from  the 
Jehovist  and  the  second  Elohist.  But  there  are  several 
considerations  which  quite  destroy  the  force  of  tlio 
argument  for  distinct  documents  from  this  source,  a.  If 
the  Elohim  sections  prior  to  Gen.  xx.  are  thought 
to  have  a  diction  different  from  that  of  the  Jehovist; 
and  the  great  body  of  the  Elohim  seditions  after  Gen.  xx. 
have  a  diction  confessedly  indistinguishable  from  that 
of  the  Jehovist,  the  presumption  certainly  is  that  the 
difference  alleged  in  the  early  chapters  rests  on  too 
limited  an  induction  ;  and  when  the  induction  is  carried 
further,  it  appears  that  the  conclusion  has  been  too  hasty, 
and  that  no  real  difference  exists,  h.  Again,  the  great 
bulk  of  the  narrative  of  Genesis,  so  far  as  it  concerns 
transactions  in  ordinary  life,  is  divided  between  tho 
Jehovist  and  the  second  Elohist.  The  first  Elohist  ia 
limited  to  genealogies,  legal  sections,  extraordinary 
events,  such  as  the  creation  and  flood,  or  mere  isolated 
notices,  as  of  births,  deaths,  ages,  migrations,  etc.  That 
matter  of  a  different  description  should  call  for  the  iise 
of  a  different  set  of  words,  while  in  matter  of  the  same 
sort  like  words  are  used  is  just  what  might  be  expected  ; 
and  there  is  no  need  of  assuming  different  documents  in 


S6     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

order  to  account  for  it.  c.  Still  further,  when,  as  in  Gen. 
xxxiv.,  a  narrative  is  for  special  reasons  assigned  in  part 
to  the  first  Elohist,  it  is  as  impossible  to  distinguish  its 
diction  from  that  of  the  other  documents  as  it  elsewhere 
is  to  distinguish  the  diction  of  the  second  Elohist  from 
that  of  the  Jehovist ;  and  other  grounds  of  distinction 
must  be  resorted  to  in  order  to  effect  a  separation.  All 
this  makes  it  evident  that  the  variant  diction  alleged  is 
due  to  the  difference  in  the  matter  and  not  to  diversity 
of  documents. 

(5)  The  function  assigned  to  the  redactor  assumes 
that  he  acts  in  the  most  capricious  and  inconsistent 
manner,  more  so  even  than  the  Jehovist  of  the  Supple- 
ment Hypothesis.  At  times  he  is  represented  as  scrupu- 
lously careful  to  preserve  everything  contained  in  his 
various  sources,  though  it  leads  to  needless  and  unmean- 
ing repetition ;  at  others  he  omits  large  and  important 
sections,  though  the  document  from  which  they  are 
dropped  is  thus  reduced  to  a  mutilated  remnant.  Where 
his  sources  disagree  he  sometimes  retains  the  narrative 
of  each  unchanged,  thus  placing  the  whole  case  fairly 
before  his  readers ;  at  others  he  alters  them  into  corre- 
spondence, which  is  hardly  consistent  with  historical 
honesty.  Variant  narratives  of  the  same  event  are  some- 
times harmonized  by  combining  them,  thus  confusing 
both ;  sometimes  they  are  mistaken  for  distinct  and  even 
widely  separated  events  and  related  as  such,  an  error 
which  reflects  upon  his  intelligence,  since  critics  with 
the  incomplete  data  which  he  has  left  them  are  able  to 
correct  it.  He  sometimes  reproduces  his  sources  just  as 
he  finds  them;  at  others  he  alters  their  whole  com- 
plexion by  freely  manipulating  the  text  or  making  addi- 
tions of  his  own.  Everything  in  diction,  style,  or  ideas 
which  is  at  variance  with  the  requirements  of  the  hypo- 
thesis, is  laid  to  his  account,  and  held  to  be  due  to  his 


THE  UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  87 

interference.  The  present  text  does  not  suit  the  hy- 
pothesis, therefore  it  must  have  been  altered,  and  the 
redactor  must  have  done  it. 

It  is  evident  how  convenient  it  is  to  have  a  redactor 
always  at  hand  to  whom  every  miscarriage  of  the  hypoth- 
esis can  be  attributed.  But  it  is  also  evident  that  the 
frequent  necessity  for  invoking  his  aid  seriously  weakens 
the  cause  which  he  is  summoned  to  support.  It  is 
further  evident  that  the  suspicions  cast  upon  the  ac- 
curacy with  which  the  redactor  has  transmitted  the 
various  texts  which  he  had  before  him  undermines  the 
entire  basis  of  the  hypothesis.  For  it  undertakes  to  es- 
tablish the  existence  of  the  so-called  documents,  and  to 
discriminate  between  them,  by  verbal  criteria,  which  are 
nullified  if  the  original  texts  have  been  tampered  with. 
And  it  is  still  further  evident  that  the  opposite  traits  of 
character  impliedly  ascribed  to  the  redactor,  the  utterly 
capricious  and  irrational  conduct  imputed  to  him,  and 
the  wanton  and  aimless  manipulation  of  his  authorities, 
for  which  no  motive  can  be  imagined,  tend  to  make  this 
most  important  functionary  an  impossible  conception. 

Both  Ewald  and  Hupfeld  were  regarded  at  the  time  as 
having  made  a  retrograde  movement  instead  of  an  ad- 
vance, by  falling  back  from  the  simplicity  of  the  then 
dominant  Supplement  Hypothesis  into  a  greater  complex- 
ity than  that  of  the  original  Document  Hypothesis.  The 
fact  is,  however,  that  the  complexity  inevitably  grows,  as 
the  critics  aim  at  greater  precision,  and  endeavor  to  adapt 
their  scheme  more  exactly  to  the  phenomena  with  which 
they  have  to  deal.  The  multiplication  of  machinery,  which 
is  necessary  before  all  can  work  smoothly,  so  overloads 
their  apparatus  that  it  is  in  danger  of  breaking  down  by 
its  own  weight.  They  find  themselves  obliged  to  pile 
hypothesis  upon  hypothesis  in  order  to  relieve  difiicul- 
ties,  and  explain  diversities,  and  account  for  iiTegulari- 


88     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ties  by  subdivided  documents,  and  successive  recensions, 
and  a  series  of  redactors,  and  unfathered  glosses,  and 
variegated  legal  strata,  and  diaskeuasts  in  unlimited  -pYO- 
fusion,  until  the  whole  thing  reaches  a  state  of  confusion 
worse  confounded,  almost  equivalent  to  that  of  the  ex- 
ploded Fragment  Hypothesis  itself. 

For  the  sake  of  brevity  the  Pentateuchal  documents 
are  commonly  denoted  by  symbols.  Dr.  Dillmann  em- 
ploys the  first  four  letters  of  the  alphabet  for  the  pur- 
pose ;  he  calls  the  Elohist  A,  the  second  Elohist  B,  the 
Jehovist  C,  and  the  Deuteronomist  D.  Others  use  the 
same  symbols,  but  change  the  order  of  their  application. 
In  the  nomenclature  that  is  now  most  prevalent  the 
term  Elohist  is  apj^lied  exclusively  to  what  used  to  be 
known  as  the  second  Elohist,  and  it  is  rejDresented  by  E  ; 
the  Jehovist  by  J.  J  and  E  are  alleged  to  have  ema- 
nated from  prophetic  circles,  J  in  the  southern  kingdom 
of  Judah,  and  E  in  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel.  The 
second  Elohist  having  been  separated  from  what  used  to 
be  known  as  the  Elohist  document,  the  remnant  was  by 
Wellhausen  fancifully  called  Q,  the  initial  of  quatuor  =: 
4,  because  of  the  four  covenants  which  it  contains. 
Others  prefer  to  designate  it  as  P,  the  priestly  writing,  in 
distinction  from  the  prophetic  histories  J  and  E.  The 
critics  further  distinguish  J^  and  J^,  E^  and  E^,  P^,  P^ 
and  P  ^,  D  ^  and  D  ^,  which  represent  different  strata  in 
these  documents.  Different  Kedactors  are  embraced 
under  the  general  symbol  E,  viz.,  Kj  who  combined  J 
and  E,  Kd  who  added  D  to  JE,  and  Eh  who  completed 
the  Hexateuch  by  combining  P  with  JED. 

THE  GROUNDS   OF  LITERARY  PARTITION  CONSIDERED. 

While  these  various  hypotheses,  which  have  thus  arisen 
each  on  the  ruins  of  its  predecessor,  are,  as  has  been 


THE  UITITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  89 

shown,  individually  encumbered  with  insuperable  diffi- 
culties peculiar  to  each,  the  common  arguments  by  which 
their  advocates  seek  to  establish  them  are  insufficient 
and  inconclusive. 

1.  The  first  argument,  as  already  stated,  in  defence  of 
these  several  partition  hypotheses,  is  drawn  from  the 
alternate  employment  of  the  divine  names  Elohim  and 
Jehovah.  It  may  be  observed,  however,  that  so  far  as 
there  is  any  thing  remarkable  in  the  alternation  of  these 
names  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  confined  almost  entirely  to 
the  book  of  Genesis,  and  chiefly  to  the  earlier  portions 
of  that  book.  It  cannot,  of  course,  be  maintained  that 
the  same  writer  could  not  make  use  of  both  names. 
They  are  intermingled  in  various  proportions  in  almost 
every  book  of  the  Bible.  The  occurrence  of  both  in  the 
same  composition  can  of  itself  create  no  suspicion  of  its 
lack  of  unity.  The  special  grounds  which  are  relied 
upon  in  this  case  are,  (1)  the  regularity  of  their  alterna- 
tion in  successive  sections ;  and  (2)  the  testimony  of 
Ex.  vi.  3,  which  is  understood  to  declare  that  the  name 
Jehovah  is  not  pre-Mosaic  and  was  not  in  use  in  the 
days  of  the  patriarchs,  whence  it  is  inferred  that  P,  by 
whom  this  is  recorded,  systematically  avoided  the  use  of 
Jehovah  prior  to  the  time  when  God  thus  revealed  him- 
self to  Moses. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  points,  remarkable  as  is  the 
alternation  of  the  divine  names,  particularly  in  the  earlier 
chapters  of  Genesis,  it  does  not  coincide  so  precisely 
with  sections  or  paragraphs  as  the  advocates  of  these 
hypotheses  would  have  us  imagine  ;  for  with  all  the  care 
that  they  have  taken  in  dividing  these  sections  to  suit 
their  theory,  each  of  these  names  is  found  repeatedly  in 
sections  mainly  characterized  by  the  other.  The  diver- 
gence between  the  hypothesis  and  the  facts,  on  which  it 
is  professedly  based,  is  so  great  that  it  cannot  give  a 


90     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

satisfactory  explanation  of  them;  and  the  arbitrary 
methods  to  which  its  advocates  are  forced  to  resort,  in 
order  to  remove  this  divergence,  are  absolutely  destruc- 
tive of  the  hypothesis  itself,  as  can  be  readily  shown. 

For  the  critics  are  obliged  to  play  fast  and  loose  with 
the  text  in  a  manner  and  to  a  degree  which  renders 
all  their  reasoning  precarious.  The  alternation  of  the 
divine  names  Elohim  and  Jehovah  is  made  by  them  the 
key  of  their  whole  position.  This  is  the  starting-point  of 
the  partition,  and  of  the  entire  hypothesis  of  the  separate 
documents.  All  the  other  criteria  are  supplementary  to 
this ;  they  are  worked  out  on  this  basis,  and  find  in  it 
whatever  justification  and  proof  of  their  validity  they 
have.  All  hinges  ultimately,  therefore,  on  the  exact  trans- 
mission of  these  fundamental  and  determining  words. 
At  the  outset  the  lines  of  demarcation  are  run  exclu- 
sively by  them  ;  and  an  error  in  these  initial  lines,  by 
confusing  the  limits  of  the  documents,  would  introduce 
error  into  their  respective  criteria  as  deduced  from  the 
inspection  of  these  faulty  passages.  If  there  is  anything 
that  must  be  absolutely  fixed  and  resolutely  adhered  to, 
if  the  document  hypothesis  is  to  stand,  it  is  the  accuracy 
of  these  divine  names,  which  are  the  pillars  on  which  the 
whole  critical  structure  rests.  And  yet  the  critics,  in  re- 
peated instances,  declare  them  to  be  incorrect  or  out  of 
place.  They  are,  in  fact,  forced  by  the  perplexities  of 
their  situation  thus  to  cut  away  the  ground  from  beneath 
their  own  feet.  The  divine  names  are  made  the  prime 
criteria  for  distinguishing  the  so-called  documents.  It  is 
said  that  J  (the  Jehovist)  characteristically  uses  Jehovah, 
E  (the  Elohist)  Elohim,  and  P  (the  priestly  writer)  Elo- 
him as  far  as  Ex.  vi.  2,  3,  and  Jehovah  thereafter.  But 
the  trouble  is  that  with  their  utmost  efforts  the  critics 
find  it  impossible  to  adjust  the  documents  into  conform- 
ity with  this  proposed  scheme  ;  though  their  alleged  cor- 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  91 

respondence  with  it  is  the  sole  ultimate  warrant  for  their 
existence,  the  supreme  criterion,  on  which  all  other  cri- 
teria depend.  In  the  first  place,  Elohim  is  repeatedly 
found  along  with  Jehovah  in  sections  attributed  to  J. 
Here  the  critics  explain  that  the  author  of  this  document 
used  both  names  as  the  occasion  demanded.  But  this  is 
putting  the  use  of  these  names  on  an  entirely  difierent 
ground  from  that  of  the  distinctive  usage  of  separate 
writers.  If  J  could  use  both  of  these  names,  and  in  so 
doing  was  governed  by  their  inherent  signification  and 
by  the  appropriateness  of  each  to  the  connection  in  which 
they  are  severally  employed,  why  might  not  P  and  E  do 
the  same  ?  or  why,  in  fact,  is  there  any  need  for  J,  P,  or 
E,  or  for  any  other  than  the  one  author  to  whom  a  uniform 
and  well-accredited  tradition  attributes  all  that  it  has 
been  proposed  to  parcel  among  these  unknown  and  un- 
discoverable  personages  ?  The  appropriate  use  of  these 
divine  names,  as  ascertained  from  the  acknowledged  em- 
ployment of  them  by  J,  taken  in  connection  with  the  ex- 
plicit statement  of  Ex.  vi.  3,  not  in  the  perverted  sense 
put  upon  it  by  the  critics,  but  in  its  true  signification,  as 
determined  by  the  numerous  parallels  in  the  book  of  Ex- 
odus, and  throughout  the  entire  Old  Testament,  will  ex- 
plain their  alternation  in  Genesis  in  a  satisfactory  man- 
ner, which  the  hypothetical  documents  have  not  done, 
and  cannot  do. 

Again,  Jehovah  occurs  repeatedly  in  sections  attributed 
to  P  and  E,  where,  by  the  hypothesis,  only  Elohim  should 
be  found.  Every  possible  evasion  is  employed  to  get 
rid  of  these  unwelcome  facts.  Where  the  facts  are  at 
variance  with  the  hypothesis,  the  invariable  assumption 
is  that  the  hypothesis  is  right  and  the  facts  are  wrong, 
and  require  correction.  The  redactor  has  for  some  un- 
imaginable reason  been  at  fault.  He  has  inserted  a  verse, 
or  a  clause,  or  simply  the  unsuitable  divine  name  of  his 


92     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

own  motion,  without  there  being  anything  in  the  original 
text  that  corresponded  to  it ;  or  he  has  erased  the  divine 
name  that  was  in  the  text,  and  substituted  another  for  it ; 
or  he  has  mixed  two  texts  by  inserting  into  the  body  of 
one  document  a  clause  supposed  to  be  taken  from  another. 
And  thus  the  attempt  is  made  to  bolster  up  the  hypoth- 
esis by  an  inference  drawn  from  the  hypothesis.  And 
the  effect  is  to  unsettle  the  text  at  those  crucial  points 
w^here  accuracy  and  certainty  are  essential  to  the  validity 
of  the  hypothesis,  not  to  speak  of  the  corollaries  dedu- 
cible  from  it. 

Elohim  occurs  inconveniently  for  the  critics  in  Gen. 
vii.  9;  hence  Kautzsch  claims  that  it  must  have  been 
originally  Jehovah,  while  Dillmann  insists  that  vs.  8,  9 
were  inserted  by  R  (the  redactor).  The  critics  wish  to 
make  it  appear  that  two  accounts  of  the  flood,  by  P  and 
J  respectively,  have  been  blended  in  the  existing  text ; 
and  that  vs.  7-9  is  J's  account,  and  vs.  13-16  that  by 
P.  But  unfortunately  for  them,  this  is  blocked  by  the 
occurrence  in  each  one  of  the  verses  assigned  to  J,  of  ex- 
pressions foreign  to  J  and  peculiar  to  P  ;  and  to  cap  the 
climax,  the  divine  name  is  not  J's  but  P's.  The  repe- 
tition cannot,  therefore,  be  wrested  into  an  indication  of 
a  duplicate  narrative,  but  simply,  as  its  language  clearly 
shows,  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  entry  into  the  ark 
was  made  on  the  self-same  day  that  the  flood  began. 

*'  And  Jehovah  shut  him  in  "  (vii.  16b),  occurs  in  the 
midst  of  a  P  paragraph  ;  hence  it  is  alleged  that  this  sol- 
itary clause  has  been  inserted  from  a  supposed  parallel 
narrative  by  J.  But  this  overlooks  the  significant  and 
evidently  intended  contrast  of  the  two  divine  names  in 
this  verse,  a  significance  to  which  Delitzsch  calls  atten- 
tion, thus  discrediting  the  basis  of  the  critical  analysis, 
which  he  nevertheless  accepts.  Animals  of  every  species 
went  into  the  ark,  as  Elohim,  the  God  of  creation  and 


THE   UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  93 

providence  directed,  mindful  of  the  preservation  of  wliat 
he  had  made  ;  Jehovah,  the  guardian  of  his  people,  shut 
Noah  in. 

In  xiv.  22,  Jehovah  occurs  not  in  a  J  section,  and  is 
declared  spurious  for  that  reason  ;  though  it  is  the  name 
of  God  as  known  to  Abram,  in  distinction  from  him  as 
he  was  known  to  Melchizedek  (ver.  19). 

Ch.  xvii.  is  assigned  to  P  because  of  the  exclusive  use 
of  Elohim  in  it  after  ver.  1 ;  hence  it  is  claimed  that  Je- 
hovah in  ver.  1  is  an  error  for  Elohim,  notwithstanding 
the  regular  recurrence  of  Jehovah  in  all  that  preceded 
since  the  call  of  Abram  (xii.  1),  the  identity  of  the  phrase 
with  xii.  7  ;  xviii.  1,  and  the  obvious  requirements  of  this 
passage.  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Abram,  here  reveals  him- 
self as  God  Almighty  and  Elohim,  to  signalize  his  power 
to  accomplish  what  nature  could  not  effect,  and  to  pledge 
the  immediate  fulfilment  of  the  long-delayed  promise. 

Ch.  XX.  records  the  affair  with  Abimelech,  and  the 
name  of  God  is  for  this  reason  Elohim,  until  the  last 
verse,  where  Jehovah's  interference  for  the  protection  of 
Sarah  is  spoken  of.  The  significance  of  this  change  of 
names  is  lost  upon  the  critics,  who  assign  the  chapter  to 
E  because  of  Elohim,  and  then  can  account  for  Jehovah 
in  no  other  way  than  by  imputing  ver.  18  to  R. 

In  xxi.  1,  2,  there  is  a  curious  specimen  of  critical  dis- 
section. Each  verse  is  split  in  two,  and  one  sentence 
fashioned  out  of  the  two  first  halves,  and  another  out  of 
the  two  second  halves.  The  critical  necessity  for  this 
grows  out  of  the  need  of  finding  the  birth  of  Isaac  in 
both  J  and  P.  The  alleged  equivalence  of  the  two 
clauses  in  ver.  1  is  made  a  pretext  for  sundering  them, 
and  assigning  to  J  "  And  Jehovah  visited  Sarah,  as  he 
had  said ; "  and  to  P  the  rest  of  the  verse,  "  And  Jehovah 
did  unto  Sarah  as  he  had  spoken,"  which  last  is  then 
filled  out  by  ver.  2b,  "  at  the  set  time  of  which  Elohim 


94     THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

had  spoken  to  him."  But  as  it  is  inadmissible  for  Jehovah 
to  stand  in  a  P  clause  (ver.  lb),  it  is  assumed  that  it  must 
originally  have  been  Elohim.  This  is  all  built  upon  the 
sand,  however  ;  for  ver.  1  does  not  contain  two  identical 
statements.  The  second  is  an  advance  upon  the  first, 
stating  that  the  purpose  of  the  visitation  was  to  fulfil  a 
promise ;  and  what  that  promise  was  is  further  stated 
in  ver.  2.  All  is  closely  connected  and  progressive 
throughout ;  and  it  cannot  be  rent  asunder  as  the  critics 
propose.  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Abraham,  visited  Sarah, 
and  fulfilled  his  word  to  her,  and  Sarah  bare  her  son  at 
the  set  time  that  Elohim,  the  mighty  Creator,  had  said. 
The  names  are  in  every  way  appropriate  as  they  stand. ^ 

In  Abimelech's  interview  with  Abraham,  resulting  in 
the  naming  of  Beersheba,  the  name  of  God  is  appropri- 
ately Elohim  (xxi.  22,  23) ;  but  when  Abraham  wor- 
shipped there  he  called,  with  equal  propriety,  on  the 
name  of  Jehovah  (ver.  33).  The  critics,  ignoring  the  true 
reason  of  the  interchange  of  names,  tell  us  that  ver.  33  is 
a  fragment  of  J  inserted  by  B  in  a  narrative  of  E. 

In  ch.  xxii.  Elohim  puts  Abraham  to  the  trial,  the  an- 
gel of  Jehovah  interposes  and  blesses  him.  The  de- 
mand of  the  Creator  for  the  surrender  of  the  dearest  and 
the  best  is  supplemented  by  the  God  of  gTace  and  salva- 
tion, who  approves  and  rewards  the  mental  surrender, 
and  in  the  substituted  animal  supplies  for  the  time  then 
present  an  accepted  type  of  the  true  sacrifice.  This  ob- 
viously designed  and  significant  change  of  names  is  lost 
upon  the  critics,  who  find  only  the  unmeaning  usage  of 
distinct  writers,  and  can  only  account  for  Moriah,^  (ver. 

'  Kautsch  seems  to  be  alone  in  venturing  to  split  xxxix.  3  and  5,  in  a 
similar  manner,  and  giving  the  second  clause  in  each  verse  to  E,  with 
its  Jehovah  converted  into  Elohim. 

^  A  compound  proper  name  with  an  abbreviated  form  of  Jehovah  as 
one  of  its  constituents. 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  95 

2),  or  Jehovah  (ver.  11),  as  textual  errors,  and  for  the  re- 
peated occurrence  of  Jehovah  subsequently  by  making 
vs.  14-18,  an  interpolation  by  K,  or  an  insertion  from  J. 
But  the  alleged  interpolation  is  plainly  an  essential  part 
of  the  narrative  ;  the  story  of  such  a  trial,  so  borne,  is 
pointless  without  the  words  of  commendation  and  bless- 
ing. 

Isaac's  blessing  of  Esau  (xxvii.  27,  28)  is  torn  asunder 
because  Jehovah  in  the  first  sentence  is  followed  by  Elo- 
him  in  the  second. 

So  Jacob's  dream,  in  which  he  beholds  the  angels  of 
Elohim  (xxviii.  12),  and  Jehovah  (ver.  13) ;  although  his 
waking  (ver.  16)  from  the  sleep  into  which  he  had  fallen 
(vs.  11,  12)  shows  that  these  cannot  be  parted.  Jacob's 
vow  (vs.  20,  21)  is  arbitrarily  amended  by  striking  out 
'•  then  shall  Jehovah  be  my  God,"  because  of  his  previous 
mention  of  Elohim  when  referring  to  his  general  provi- 
dential benefits. 

The  story  of  the  birth  of  Leah's  first  four  sons  (xxixr 
31-35),  and  that  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  (xxx.  17-20),  are 
traced  to  different  documents  notwithstanding  their 
manifest  connection,  because  Jehovah  occurs  in  the 
former  and  Elohim  in  the  latter. 

Elohim  in  xxxi.  50,  in  a  so-called  J  paragraph,  is  for 
that  reason  summarily  pronounced  spurious. 

Since  Elohim  occurs  in  xxxiii.  5b,  11,  these  are  de- 
clared to  be  isolated  clauses  from  E  in  a  J  section. 

The  battle  with  Amalek  (Ex.  xvii.  8-13)  is  assigned  to 
E  because  of  Elohim,  ver.  9  ;  but  the  direction  to  record 
it,  the  commemorative  altar,  and  the  oath  of  perpetual 
hostility  to  Amalek  (vs.  14-16),  which  stand  in  a  most  in- 
timate relation  to  it,  are  held  to  be  from  another  docu- 
ment, because  of  Jehovah. 

In  Jethro's  visit  (Ex.  xviii.)  Elohim  (eleven  times) 
naturally  preponderates  in  what  is  said  by  or  to  one  not 


96      THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

of  the  chosen  race  ;  and  yet  Jehovah  is  used  (six  times) 
where  there  is  sj)ecific  allusion  to  the  God  of  Israel. 
But  each  Jehovah  clause  must,  according  to  the  critics, 
have  been  inserted  in  E's  narrative  by  E  from  an  as- 
sumed parallel  account  by  J. 

Ex.  xix.  is  mainly  referred  to  E ;  but  the  repeated  oc- 
currence of  Jehovah  compels  the  critics  to  assume  that 
E;  has  in  several  instances  substituted  it  for  Elohim,  and 
even  made  more  serious  changes  in  the  text. 

Ex.  xxiv.  is  divided  between  E  and  J  ;  but  the  division 
cannot  be  so  made  as  to  correspond  with  the  divine 
names  in  the  current  text. 

No  critic  pretends  to  follow  the  indication  of  the  di- 
vine names  in  dissecting  Ex.  xxxii. 

Dr.  Harper,  in  the  "  Hebraica,"  vi.  1,  p.  35,  says  of  the 
critical  analysis  of  Ex.  i.  1-vii.  7,  "  the  language  is  but 
a  poor  guide,  owing  probably  to  B's  interference ;  not 
even  the  names  of  the  Deity  are  to  be  relied  on  implic- 
itly, being  freely  intermingled."  And  p.  47,  on  Ex.  vii. 
8-xii.  51 :  "  In  this  section  the  name  of  the  Deity  is  ex- 
clusively Jehovah,  which  must  have  been  substituted  by 
E  in  all  the  E  passages."  In  the  "  Hebraica,"  vi.  4,  p.  269, 
he  confesses  that  Jehovah  runs  "  all  through  E's  material  " 
in  the  section  Num.  x.  29-xvii.  28  (E.  Y.  ver.  13)  ;  and  p. 
287  complains  in  regard  to  Num.  xx.  1-xxvii.  11,  of  "  the 
unsatisfactory  use  of  the  names  of  the  Deity  ;  Yahweh  is 
the  prevailing  name,  Elohim  occurring  but  nine  times  in 
the  entire  section ;  this  is,  however,  more  easily  explained 
on  the  E  hypothesis  than  by  any  other."  That  is  to  say, 
the  use  of  the  divine  names  runs  athwart  the  critical  hy- 
pothesis to  such  an  extent  as  to  be  quite  unsatisfactory  to 
its  advocates.  And  the  easiest  way  out  of  the  difficulty  is 
to  assume  that  E  has  altered  the  name  wherever  the 
exigencies  of  the  hypothesis  require  such  a  supposition. 

For  the  striking  significance  of  the  divine  names  in  the 


THE  UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  97 

history  of  Balaam  (Num.  xxii.-xxiv.)  the  critics  have  no 
appreciation,  but  seek  to  resolve  all  by  their  mechanical 
rule  of  blended  documents.  The  occurrence  of  Elohim 
fom-  times  in  xxii.  2-21  is  urged  as  determining  it  to 
belong  to  E ;  but  Jehovah  also  occurs  four  times,  where 
it  is  assumed  that  the  word  was  originally  Elohim,  but  it 
has  been  changed  by  K.  Jehovah  predominates  in  vs. 
22-35  J,  but  Elohim  is  found  in  ver.  22,  for  which  E  is 
again  held  responsible.  The  next  two  chapters  are  di- 
vided between  the  same  two  documents,  but  with  some 
uncertainty  to  which  each  should  belong.  Wellhausen 
assigns  ch.  xxiii.  to  J,  and  ch.  xxiv.  to  E  ;  Dillmann  re- 
verses it,  giving  ch.  xxiii.  to  E,  and  ch.  xxiv.  to  J.  But 
however  they  dispose  of  them,  the  divine  names  will  not 
suit,  and  R  must  be  supposed  to  have  manipulated  them 
here  again. 

The  real  facts  are  these.  Balaam  only  once  uses  Elo- 
him (xxii.  38) ;  and  then  it  is  to  mark  the  contrast  be- 
tween the  divine  and  the  merely  human.  Apart  from 
this  he  invariably  uses  the  divine  name  Jehovah,  whether 
he  is  speaking  to  Balak's  messengers  (xxii.  8,  13,  18,  19), 
to  Balak  (xxiii.  3, 12,  26  ;  xxiv.  13),  or  uttering  his  prophe- 
cies (xxiii.  8,  21 ;  xxiv.  6).  He  thus  indicates  that  it  was 
Jehovah  whom  he  professed  to  consult,  and  whose  will  he 
undertook  to  declare.  And  it  was  because  of  his  sup- 
posed power  with  the  God  of  Israel  that  Balak  desired 
his  aid.  Hence  Balak  uses  Jehovah  in  addressing 
Balaam  (xxiii.  17  ;  xxiv.  11) ;  only  once  Elohim  (xxiii.  27), 
as  non-Israelites  commonly  do.  When  the  writer  speaks 
of  God  in  connection  with  this  heathen  seer,  he  stead- 
fastly uses  Elohim  at  the  outset.  Balaam  regularly  pro- 
poses to  tell  the  messengers  of  Balak  what  Jehovah  will 
say  to  him,  but  the  writer  with  equal  uniformity  says 
that  Elohim  came  to  him,  and  spoke  to  him  (xxii.  9,  10, 
12,  20,  22).  He  is  not  recognized  as  an  accredited  prophet 
7 


98      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

of  Jehovali.  But  while  it  is  onlj  Elohim,  the  general 
term  denoting  the  Deity,  which  is  put  by  the  sacred 
writer  in  relation  to  Balaam  considered  as  a  heathen 
seer,  it  is  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  who  comes  forth  to  con- 
front him  on  his  unhallowed  errand,  and  Jehovah  the 
guardian  and  defender  of  Israel  who  constrains  him  to 
pronounce  a  blessing  instead  of  a  curse.  Hence  from 
xxii.  22  onward,  wherever  the  writer  speaks,  he  uses  the 
name  Jehovah,  not  only  in  the  encounter  by  the  way  but 
after  his  arrival,  as  determining  what  he  shall  say.  To 
this  there  are  but  two  exceptions.  In  xxiii.  4,  when  Ba- 
laam had  gone  to  look  for  auguries,  "  Elohim  met  him," 
reminding  us  that  he  was  but  a  heathen  seer  still ;  yet  it 
was  Jehovah  (vs.  5,  16)  who  put  the  word  in  his  mouth. 
In  xxiv.  2,  "  the  Spirit  of  Elohim  came  upon  him,"  ex- 
presses the  thought  that  he  was  divinely  inspired,  and 
spoke  by  an  impulse  from  above  and  not  from  prompt- 
ings of  his  own  ;  but  his  conviction  that  it  was  Jehovah's 
purpose  to  bless  Israel  kept  him  from  seeking  auguries 
as  at  other  times  (ver.  1).  The  partition  hypothesis  ob- 
literates this  nice  discrimination  entirely,  and  sees  noth- 
ing but  the  unmeaning  usage  of  different  writers  coupled 
with  E's  arbitrary  disturbance  of  the  text  for  no  imagin- 
able reason. 

This  rapid  survey  of  a  few  prominent  passages  suffi- 
ciently shows  the  character  of  the  evasions  by  which  the 
critics  seek  to  cover  up  the  lack  of  correspondence  be- 
tween their  hypotheses  and  the  textual  phenomena  of  the 
divine  names.  This  want  of  correspondence  betrays  it- 
self in  numerous  signal  instances.  The  attempts  to 
reheve  it  are  based  on  arbitrary  assumptions,  which  are 
mere  inferences  from  the  hypothesis  which  they  are  ad- 
duced to  support.  In  this  process  passages  which  are 
inseparable  are  rent  asunder,  and  in  many  cases  the  real 
significance  of  the  divine  names  is  ignored  or  marred. 


THE   UNITY    OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  99 

And  as  a  further  consequence  the  main  point  above  in- 
sisted upon  is  fully  established.  The  current  hypothe- 
sis of  the  critics  is  built  on  minute  verbal  distinctions, 
which  imply  an  accuracy  and  certainty  of  text  Avhich 
they  themselves  unsettle  by  their  frequent  assumptions 
of  errors  and  of  manipulations  by  the  redactor.  If  he 
altered  the  divine  names,  and  inserted  or  modified  clauses 
containing  them  in  the  instances  and  to  the  extent  alleged, 
who  is  to  vouch  that  he  has  been  more  scrupulous  else- 
where ?  The  hypothesis  is  self -destructive ;  for  it  can 
only  be  defended  by  arguments  which  undermine  its 
foundations.  And  even  if  it  were  not  possible,  as  in 
fact  it  is,  to  account  satisfactorily  for  the  interchange  of 
divine  names  on  other  grounds,  the  proof  is  ample  that 
the  hypothesis  of  distinct  writers  will  not  explain  it. 

Here,  however,  the  testimony  of  Ex.  vi.  2,  3,  is  ad- 
duced to  show  that  P  carefully  and  designedly  avoided 
the  use  of  the  name  Jehovah  in  all  that  he  had  pre- 
viously written,  but  regularly  employed  this  name  from 
that  place  onward.  The  passage  reads  :  "  God  spake 
unto  Moses,  and  said  unto  him,  I  am  Jehovah  :  and  I  ap- 
peared unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  as  God 
Almighty ;  but  by  my  name  Jehovah  I  was  not  known 
unto  them."  The  critics  interpret  this  to  mean  that  the 
name  Jehovah  was  then  first  revealed  to  Moses,  and  that 
it  had  not  been  in  use  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs. 
They  hence  regard  all  prior  sections  containing  the 
name  Jehovah  as  in  conflict  with  this  statement,  espe- 
cially as  Jehovah  is  used  not  only  in  the  language  of  the 
writer  himself ,  but  when  he  is  reporting  the  words  of  those 
who  lived  long  before  Moses's  time.  Such  sections,  it  is 
said,  imply  a  different  belief  as  to  the  origin  and  use  of 
this  sacred  name,  and  must,  therefore,  be  attributed  to 
another  waiter,  who  held  that  it  was  known  from  the 
earliest  periods,  and  who   has  recorded  his  idea  upon 


100      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

that  subject   (Gen.  iv.  26)  that  men  began  to  call  upon 
the  name  of  Jehovah  in  the  days  of  Enosh. 

But  the  sense  thus  put  upon  Ex.  vi.  3,  is  altogether  in- 
admissible.    For 

(1)  It  is  plain,  upon  the  critics'  own  hypothesis,  that 
the  redactor,  to  whom  in  their  view  the  Pentateuch  and 
Genesis  owe  their  present  form,  did  not  so  understand  it. 
After  recording  the  history  of  the  patriarchs,  in  which 
free  use  is  made  of  the  name  Jehovah,  he  is  here  sup- 
posed to  introduce  the  statement,  from  the  mouth  of 
God  himself,  that  they  had  never  heard  this  name,  and 
thus  to  have  stultified  himself  completely. 

(2)  It  is  equally  plain  that  it  could  not  have  been  so 
intended  by  the  writer.  The  statement  that  God  was  not 
known  by  his  name  Jehovah  unto  the  patriarchs  is  ex- 
plained by  the  repeated  declaration  that  Israel  (Ex.  vi. 
7 ;  X.  2  ;  xvi.  12  ;  xxix.  46),  the  Egyptians  (vii.  5  ;  xiv.  4, 18), 
and  Pharaoh  (vii.  17 ;  viii.  6, 18  (E.  V.  10,  22) ;  ix.  14,  29, 
comp.  V.  2)  should  know  that  he  was  Jehovah  ;  not  that 
they  should  be  told  that  this  was  his  name,  but  that  they 
should  witness  the  manifestation  of  those  attributes  which 
the  name  denoted.  That  he  was  not  so  known  by  the 
patriarchs  can  only  mean,  therefore,  that  while  tokens  of 
God's  almighty  power  had  been  vouchsafed  to  them,  no 
such  disclosure  had  been  made  of  the  perfections  in- 
dicated by  his  name  Jehovah  as  was  now  to  be  granted 
to  their  descendants. 

(3)  The  uniform  usage  of  Scripture  proves  the  same 
thing.  A  true  apprehension  of  the  divine  perfections, 
and  not  a  mere  acquaintance  with  the  word  Jehovah,  is 
the  constant  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  to  know  the  name 
of  Jehovah  "  (1  Kin.  viii.  43  ;  Ps.  ix.  11  (E.  V.  10) ;  xci.  14 ; 
Isa.  Hi.  6  ;  Ixiv.  1  (E.  V.  2) ;  Jer.  xvi.  21 ;  Ezek.  xxxix.  6,  7). 

It  is  important  to  observe  here  precisely  what  these 
arguments  prove,  viz.,  that  Ex.  vi.  3,  was  not  written  with 


THE  UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  101 

an  antiquarian  interest,  nor  from  an  antiquarian  point  of 
view.  It  does  not  concern  itself  about  the  history  of  the 
word  Jehovah,  and  cannot  with  any  fairness  be  regarded 
as  affirming  or  denying  anything  about  it.  Its  sole  de- 
sign is  to  declare  that  Jehovah  was  about  to  manifest  him- 
self in  the  character  represented  by  this  name  as  he  had 
not  done  to  the  patriarchs.  Since,  then,  the  writer  did 
not  intend  to  assert  that  the  word  was  unknown  to  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob,  there  is  no  reason  why,  in  relating 
their  history,  he  might  not  consistently  introduce  this 
word  in  language  uttered  by  them  or  addressed  to  them. 

Neither,  it  should  also  be  observed,  was  the  patriarchal 
history  written  in  the  spirit  of  a  verbal  antiquary,  so  as 
to  make  a  point  of  rigorously  abstaining  from  employing 
any  word  not  then  in  current  use.  Even  if  the  name 
Jehovah  were  not  in  use  prior  to  the  days  of  Moses,  the 
God  of  the  patriarchs  was  the  very  same  as  Jehovah,  and 
the  writer  might  properly  adopt  the  dialect  of  his  own 
time  in  speaking  of  him  for  the  purpose  of  asserting  the 
identity  of  the  God  of  Abraham  with  the  God  who  ap- 
peared to  Moses  and  who  led  Israel  out  of  Egypt.  It  is 
customary  to  speak  of  the  call  of  Abraham  and  of  the 
conversion  of  Paul,  though  the  patriarch's  name  was 
Abram  when  he  was  called,  and  the  apostle's  name  was 
Saul  at  the  time  of  his  conversion. 

Whether  the  name  Jehovah  was  ante-Mosaic  is  a  legiti- 
mate subject  of  inquiry.  But  it  is  not  answered  cate- 
gorically in  the  negative  by  Ex.  vi.  3,  nor  inferentially  in 
the  affirmative  by  the  use  of  this  word  in  the  patriarchal 
history.  That  question  lay  out  of  the  plane  of  the 
writer's  thoughts  in  the  one  place  as  well  as  in  the  other, 
and  no  express  utterance  is  made  regarding  it.  Much 
less  have  contradictory  answers  been  given  to  it.  The 
inconsistency  which  the  critics  affirm  does  not  exist. 
There  is  consequently  no  difficulty  from  this  source  in 


102      THE  HIGHER   CPwITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

supposing  that  the  author  of  Ex.  vi.  3,  may  likewise  have 
penned  the  Jehovist  sections  in  Genesis.  This  passage, 
though  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  partition  hypothesis, 
really  lends  it  no  support. 

Neither  does  Gen.  iv.  26  :  "  Then  began  men  to  call 
upon  the  name  of  Jehovah."  This  is  understood  by  the 
critics  to  affirm  that  in  the  belief  of  J  the  name  Jehovah 
came  into  use  in  the  days  of  Enosh  the  son  of  Seth. 
This  might  seem  to  accord  with  Eve's  use  of  Elohim  (iv. 
25)  at  the  birth  of  Seth,  and  in  her  conversation  with  the 
serpent  (iii.  1-5),  but  does  not  agree  with  her  mention  of 
Jehovah  (iv.  1)  at  the  birth  of  Cain,  long  before  the  time 
of  either  Seth  or  Enosh.  Reuss  says  that  the  writer  here 
contradicts  himself.  Dillmann  can  only  evade  the  diffi- 
culty by  a  transposition  of  the  text.  All  which  simply 
proves  that  their  interjDretation  of  iv.  26  is  false.  It  fixes 
the  origin  not  of  the  word  Jehovah,  but  of  the  formal  in- 
vocation of  the  Most  High  in  public  worship. 

If  we  may  take  a  suggestion  from  Ex.  vi.  3,  it  implies 
that  different  names  of  God  have  each  their  distinct  and 
proper  signification  ;  and  this  inherent  signification  of  the 
terms  must  be  taken  into  the  account  if  any  successful 
attempt  is  to  be  made  to  explain  their  usage.  The  me- 
chanical and  superficial  solution  of  two  blended  docu- 
ments offered  by  the  critics  will  not  answer.  Ex.  vi.  3, 
instead  of  contradicting  the  book  of  Genesis,  affords  the 
key  to  the  phenomena  which  it  presents. 

The  derivation  and  primary  signification  of  Elohim 
are  in  dispute  ;  according  to  some  authorities  the  radical 
meaning  is  that  of  power,  according  to  others  it  denotes 
one  who  is  the  object  of  fear  and  adoration.  It  is  the 
general  name  for  God,  and  is  applied  both  to  the  true 
God  and  to  pagan  deities.  Jehovah  is  not  a  common  but 
a  proper  noun.  It  belongs  to  the  true  God  alone  and  is 
his  characteristic  name,  by  which  he   is   distinguished 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  103 

from  all  others,  and  by  wliicli  he  made  himself  known  to 
Israel  his  chosen  people.  Accordingly  Jehovah  denotes 
specifically  what  God  is  in  and  to  Israel ;  Elohim  what 
he  is  to  other  nations  as  well.  That  universal  agency 
which  is  exercised  in  the  world  at  large,  and  which  is  di- 
rected upon  Israel  and  Gentiles  alike,  is,  by  Elohim,  the 
God  of  creation  and  of  providence.  That  special  mani- 
festation of  himself  which  is  made  to  his  own  people  is 
by  Jehovah,  the  God  of  revelation  and  of  redemption. 
The  sacred  writer  uses  one  name  or  the  other  according 
as  he  contemplates  God  under  one  or  the  other  point  of 
view.  Where  others  than  those  of  the  chosen  race 
are  the  speakers,  as  Abimelech  (Gen.  xxi.  22,  23)  or 
Pharaoh  (xli.  38,  39),  it  is  natural  that  they  should  say 
Elohim,  unless  they  specifically  refer  to  the  God  of  the 
patriarchs  (xxvi.  28),  or  of  Israel  (Ex.  v.  2),  when  they 
will  say  Jehovah.  In  transactions  between  Abraham  or 
his  descendants  and  those  of  another  race  God  may  be 
spoken  of  under  aspects  common  to  them  both,  and  the 
name  Elohim  be  employed  ;  or  he  may  be  regarded  under 
aspects  specifically  Israeli tish  and  the  name  Jehovah  be 
used.  Again,  as  Elohim  is  the  generic  name  for  God  as 
distinguished  from  beings  of  a  different  grade,  it  is  the 
term  proper  to  be  used  when  God  and  man,  the  divine 
and  the  human,  are  contrasted,  as  Gen.  xxx.  2 ;  xxxii. 
28  ;  xlv.  5,  7,  8  ;  1.  19,  20. 

Hengstenberg  ^  maintained  that  Elohim  denotes  a  lower 
and  Jehovah  a  higher  stage  of  the  knowledge  and  appre- 
hension of  God.  The  revelation  of  God  advances  from 
his  disclosure  as  Elohim  in  the  creation  (Gen.  i.)  to  his 
disclosure  as  Jehovah  in  his  covenant  with  Israel  at 
Sinai ;  and  in  the  interval  between  these  two  extremes 
he  may  be  designated  by  one  name  or  the  other,  accord- 
ing to  the  conception  which  is  before  the  mind  of  the 
'Die  Autheutie  des  Pentateuches,  I.,  p.  286,  etc. 


104      THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM    OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

writer  at  the  time.  In  any  manifestation  surpassing 
those  which  have  preceded  he  may  be  called  Jehovah ; 
or  if  respect  is  had  to  more  glorious  manifestations  that 
are  to  follow,  he  may  be  called  Elohim.  The  names  ac- 
cording to  this  view  are  relatively  employed  to  indicate 
higher  or  lower  grades  of  God's  manifestation  of  himself. 
There  seems  to  be  a  measure  of  truth  in  this  representa- 
tion of  the  matter,  at  least  in  its  general  outlines.  The 
name  Jehovah  shines  out  conspicuously  at  three  marked 
epochs,  while  in  the  intervals  between  them  it  is  dimmed 
and  but  rarely  appears.  Jehovah  is  almost  exclusively 
used  in  the  account  of  our  first  parents,  recording  the 
initiating  of  God's  kingdom  on  earth  (ch.  ii.  4-iv.  16),  in 
its  contrast  with  the  material  creation  described  in  ch.  i. ; 
in  the  lives  of  Abraham  and  Isaac,  recording  the  setting 
apart  of  one  among  the  families  of  mankind  to  found  the 
chosen  people  of  God  in  its  contrast  with  the  preceding 
universal  degeneracy  (Gen.  xii.-xvii.  1 ;  xxvi.) ;  and  God's 
revelation  of  himself  to  Moses  as  the  deliverer  and  God 
of  Israel,  fulfilling  the  promises  made  to  their  fathers,  in 
contrast  with  the  antecedent  period  of  waiting  and  for- 
eign residence  and  oppression.  From  this  time  onward 
Jehovah  is  the  dominant  name,  since  the  theocratic  re- 
lation was  then  fully  established.  The  general  corre- 
spondence of  Hengstenberg's  theory  with  the  marked 
prevalence  of  the  name  Jehovah  in  the  sections  indicated, 
and  its  comparatively  infrequent  occurrence  in  the  inter- 
vening portions  of  the  history  is  manifest ;  but  there 
are  exceptional  cases,  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  on 
this  sole  principle,  such  as  the  occasional  occurrence  of 
Jehovah  in  the  narrative  of  the  flood,  or  in  the  lives  of 
Jacob  and  Joseph,  or  of  Elohim  in  Gen.  xvii.,  which  is 
one  of  the  crowning  passages  in  Abraham's  life.  Here 
Hengstenberg  found  himself  obliged  to  resort  to  unsatis- 
factory and  far-fetched  explanations,  which  have  brought 


TUE   UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  105 

his  whole  theory  into  unmerited  discredit.  These,  how- 
ever, merely  show,  not  that  his  principle  was  incorrect, 
but  that  it  was  partial  and  was  in  certain  cases  limited 
by  other  considerations,  which  must  likewise  be  taken 
into  the  account  in  order  to  a  just  view  of  the  whole 
subject. 

Kui-tz^  regards  Elohim  as  denoting  almighty  power 
and  Jehovah  progressive  self-manifestation,  which,  prop- 
erly understood  and  applied,  furnishes  the  needed  cor- 
rective to  the  view  just  considered.  For  a  right  concep- 
tion of  the  omnipotent  energy  of  Elohim  in  creation  and 
providence,  and  of  Jehovah  as  unfolding,  guiding,  and 
sustaining  his  scheme  of  grace,  and  hence  standing  in  a 
special  relation  to  the  chosen  race  and  out  of  relation  to 
Gentiles,  to  whom  he  has  not  made  himself  known  and 
who  are  suffered  to  walk  in  their  own  ways,  supplies  the 
solution  of  the  exceptional  cases  above  referred  to.  But 
unfortunately  Kurtz's  antagonism  to  Hengstenberg  pre- 
vented his  combining  his  own  suggestion  with  that  of 
his  predecessor.  And  his  fondness  for  theorizing  led 
him  into  unpractical  refinements.  Thus  he  explains 
Jehovah  according  to  its  derivation  (Ex.  iii.  14)  to  mean 
not  the  great  I  AM,  the  Being  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
self-existent  God,  the  source  of  all  existence,  but  he  who 
will  become,  is  ever  becoming,  the  self-developing  God, 
an  expression  which  taken  strictly  savors  of  the  pan- 
theistic philosophy,  for  which  Kurtz  had  no  affinity, 
though  in  this  borrowing  its  terminology.  He  further 
explains  Elohim  to  be  the  God  of  the  beginning  and  of 
the  end,  and  Jehovah  the  God  of  all  that  intervenes 
between  these  two  extremes.  Elohim  is  the  creator  and 
originator,  imparting  the  initial  potency,  Jehovah  con- 
ducts the  development,  and  Elohim  is  the  final  judge 
whether  the  development  Las  miscarried  through  the 
^  Eiiiheit  der  Genesis,  p.  xlix.  sqq. ;  see  also  p.  xxxi.,  note. 


106      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

abuse  of  human  freedom,  or  has  reached  its  proper  end 
so  that  God  is  all  in  all.  This  might  account  for  the 
predominance  of  Elohim  in  the  flood  which  overwhelmed 
the  guilty  world;  but  it  was  Jehovah  who  overthrew  the 
flagitious  cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  swept  their 
abominations  from  the  holy  land. 

It  should  further  be  observed  that  while  in  certain 
cases  one  of  the  divine  names  is  manifestly  appropriate 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  other,  there  are  others  in  wiiicli 
either  name  might  proj^erly  be  used,  and  it  is  at  the 
discretion  of  the  writer  which  he  will  employ.  When  an 
event  is  capable  of  being  viewed  under  a  double  aspect, 
either  as  belonging  to  the  general  scheme  of  God's  uni- 
versal providence  or  as  embraced  within  the  adminis- 
tration of  his  plan  of  grace,  either  Elohim  or  Jehovah 
would  be  in  place,  and  it  depends  upon  the  writer's  con- 
ception at  the  time  which  he  will  employ.  It  is  not 
necessary,  therefore,  in  Genesis  any  more  than  in  other 
books  of  the  Bible,  to  be  able  to  show  that  there  was  a 
necessity  for  using  that  divine  name  which  is  actually 
employed.  It  is  sufficient  to  show,  as  can  invariably  be 
done,  that  the  writer  might  properly  use  the  name  which 
he  has  actually  chosen.  This  fully  refutes  the  purely 
mechanical  view,  which  overlooks  the  difference  in  the 
meaning  and  usage  of  these  names,  and  their  appropri- 
ateness to  the  connection  in  which  they  are  found,  and 
sees  in  their  alternation  nothing  but  the  unmeaning 
peculiarities  of  style  of  different  writers. 

II.  The  second  argument  in  favor  of  the  various  par- 
tition hypotheses  is  drawn  from  the  alleged  fact  that 
when  the  several  sections  or  paragraphs,  respectively 
assigned  to  the  supposed  writers  separately,  are  put  to- 
gether they  form  a  continuous  and  connected  whole. 
But— 

(1)  The  allegation  is  not  well  founded.     It  is   only 


THE   UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  107 

they  who  have  a  theory  to  support  who  can  fail  to  see 
the  chasms  and  abrupt  transitions  which  are  created  by 
the  partition,  and  which  require  in  order  to  fill  them  the 
very  passages  which  have  been  abstracted  as  belonging 
to  another  document.  Thus  in  ch.  i.  P  gives  an  account 
of  the  creation,  and  declares  that  God  saw  that  everything 
that  he  had  made  was  very  good.  And  then  in  vi.  11, 12, 
without  the  slightest  explanation,  he  suddenly  announces 
that  the  earth  was  corrupt  before  God  and  was  filled  with 
violence  so  that  he  was  determined  to  destroy  it.  This  is 
quite  inexplicable  without  the  account  of  the  fall,  which 
has  been  sundered  from  it  and  given  to  J.  In  xix.  29 
P  tells  what  happened  when  God  destroyed  the  cities  of 
the  plain,  without  having  before  alluded  to  such  a  de- 
struction as  having  occurred ;  the  account  of  it  is  only  to 
be  found  in  J.  In  xxviii.  1-5  P  tells  that  Isaac  sent 
Jacob  to  Padan-aram  to  obtain  a  wife.  But  his  entire 
residence  there,  eventful  as  it  was,  is  in  P  an  absolute 
blank.  In  xxxi.  18  he  is  said  to  be  returning  with  goods 
and  cattle,  and  in  xxxv.  22-26  his  twelve  children  are  enu- 
merated, though  no  previous  intimation  had  been  given 
by  P  of  his  having  either  property  or  a  family.  How  all 
this  came  about  is  related  only  in  the  other  documents. 
Numerous  gaps  and  chasms  of  this  nature  are  found  in 
each  of  the  so-called  documents,  and  are  in  every  case 
created  by  the  critical  partition.  The  critics  undertake 
to  account  for  all  such  cases  by  saying  that  the  redactor, 
having  given  the  narrative  from  one  of  his  sources,  de- 
signedly omits  Avhat  is  contained  in  the  others  to  avoid 
needless  repetition.  And  yet  in  other  cases  we  are  told 
that  he  scrupulously  retains  the  contents  of  his  different 
sources,  even  though  it  leads  to  such  superfluous  repeti- 
tions as  the  double  mention  of  Noah's  entry  into  the  ark 
and  of  various  particulars  connected  with  the  flood 
as  given  both  by  J  and  P.     They  are  besides  perpetu- 


108     THE  HIGHER  CEITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ally  drawing  inferences  that  imply  the  completeness  of 
the  documents,  as  when  they  attribute  to  P  the  notion 
that  sacrifice  was  first  introduced  by  Moses ;  or  when 
they  interpret  passages  at  variance  with  their  context  on 
the  assumption  that  nothing  had  been  joined  with  them 
like  that  from  which  the  so-called  critical  analysis  sepa- 
rates them.  It  is  thus  that  the  most  of  the  alleged  con- 
trarieties are  created.  In  fact  critical  partition  would 
lose  its  chief  interest  and  importance  in  the  eyes  of  its 
advocates  if  they  were  not  allowed  in  this  manner  to  alter 
and  even  revolutionize  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  text. 

(2)  In  many  cases  where  continuity  is  claimed  it  is 
only  accomplished  by  bridging  evident  gaps  by  means  of 
scattered  clauses  sundered  here  and  there  from  their 
proper  connection,  as  is  done  for  J  in  the  account  of  the 
flood,  and  for  P  in  the  early  history  of  Abraham.  Or 
by  alleging  that  the  texts  of  two  documents  have  been 
mixed,  and  because  a  paragraph  attributed  to  one  docu- 
ment contains  occasional  words  or  phrases  which  are 
assumed  to  be  peculiar  to  another,  inferring  that  these 
must  have  been  taken  from  some  imaginary  parallel  pas- 
sage in  that  document,  which  is  necessary  to  make  out 
its  continuity,  as  in  both  J  and  E  in  the  history  of 
Joseph. 

(3)  The  apparent  connection  produced  by  bringing 
separated  passages  together  and  removing  the  interven- 
ing paragi'aphs  or  sections  is  altogether  factitious.  This 
may  be  so  adroitly  done  that  such  passages  will  read  con- 
tinuously as  though  there  had  been  no  omission.  But 
any  other  book  can  be  subjected  to  the  same  mode  of 
treatment  with  a  like  result.  Paragraphs  of  greater  or 
less  extent  can  be  removed  from  any  piece  of  writing 
whatever  without  the  reader  suspecting  it,  unless  he  is 
informed  of  the  fact. 

(4)  The  proofs  are  abundant  that  each  of  the  so-called 


THE  UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  109 

documents  either  directly  alludes  to,  or  presupposes,  wliat 
is  contained  in  the  others.  This  is,  of  course,  quite  incon- 
sistent with  the  hypothesis  of  their  independent  origin. 
The  utmost  pains  have  been  taken  by  the  critics  to  con- 
struct their  documents  so  as  to  avoid  this  inter-relation  ; 
but  it  has  been  impossible  for  them  to  prevent  it  alto- 
gether. Hence  they  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  their 
intimate  connection.  Kayser  regards  J  as  the  redactor  of 
JE  ;  Dillmann  thinks  that  J  possessed  and  often  borrow^ed 
from  E  ;  Jiilicher  that  P  drew  from  JE.  Both  the  same- 
ness of  plan  and  the  reciprocal  relation  of  the  narratives 
in  all  the  so-called  documents  throughout  the  entire  Pen- 
tateuchal  history  implies  a  dependence  of  one  upon  the 
other.     This  is  admitted  even  by  Wellhausen. 

(5)  The  critics  are  in  the  habit  of  playing  fast  and 
loose  with  the  criterion  of  continuity,  which  at  times  is 
their  sole  or  chief  dependence,  and  at  others  is  disre- 
garded entirely.  While  they  profess  to  trace  documents 
in  a  great  measure  by  the  connection  of  their  several 
parts,  they  in  numerous  instances  sunder  w^hat  is  most 
intimately  bound  together  by  necessary  implications  or 
express  allusions,  thus  nullifying  their  own  principal 
clew  and  invalidating  their  own  conclusions. 

III.  The  third  argument  in  favor  of  the  partition  hy- 
pothesis is  draw^n  from  parallel  passages,  which  are  al- 
leged to  be  separate  accounts  of  the  same  thing  taken 
from  different  documents.     But — 

(1)  In  many  instances  what  are  claimed  as  parallel 
sections  are  not  really  such,  but  relate  to  matters  quite 
distinct,  which,  however,  bear  some  resemblance  to  each 
other.  Thus,  to  refer  to  an  instance  previously  adduced, 
there  is  nothing  surprising  in  the  fact  that  Abraham 
should  on  two  occasions  have  been  betrayed  into  a  pre- 
varication respecting  his  wife.  His  having  done  so  once 
in  apprehended  peril  might  easily  incline  him  to  do  so 


110      THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

again  in  similar  circumstances.  And  that  Isaac,  wlien 
similarly  situated,  should  imitate  the  error  of  his  father, 
is  not  at  all  incredible.  All  history  would  be  thrown 
into  confusion,  if  a  mere  general  resemblance  in  differ- 
ent events  were  to  lead  to  their  identification.  How 
easy  it  would  be  for  some  future  historian  to  claim  that 
the  accounts  of  the  different  battles  at  Bull  Run,  in  the 
late  war  of  the  rebellion,  all  issuing  in  one  way,  were 
merely  varjdng  traditions  of  one  and  the  same.  To  infer 
the  identity  of  the  facts  from  the  points  of  agreement  in 
the  narratives,  and  then  the  discrepancy  in  the  state- 
ments regarding  it  from  their  disagreement  in  other 
points,  which  simply  shows  the  facts  to  be  distinct,  is  to 
construct  a  self-contradictory  argument.  Moreover,  the 
assertion  that  what  are  recorded  as  distinct  events  are  in 
reality  variant  accounts  of  one  and  the  same  thing,  is 
made  without  the  semblance  of  proof  or  evidence  of  any 
sort.  It  is  simply  based  on  the  prior  assumption  of  the 
untrust worthiness  of  the  sacred  historian.  His  explicit 
statement  is  set  aside  as  valueless  beside  the  arbitrary 
conjecture  of  the  critic.  This  is  not  a  conclusion  estab- 
lished by  the  divisive  criticism,  but  is  assumed  in  advance 
as  a  basis  on  which  the  divisive  criticism  is  itself  built. 
This  reveals  the  unfriendly  animus  of  the  current  critical 
analysis,  which  is  inwrought  in  it,  and  inseparable  from 
it,  and  is  one  of  the  determining  influences  by  which  it 
has  been  shaped. 

(2)  Where  the  events  referred  to  are  the  same,  they 
are  mentioned  under  a  different  aspect  or  adduced  for  a 
different  purpose,  which  accounts  for  the  repetition. 
Thus  the  renewed  mention  in  Gen.  ii.  of  the  formation 
of  man  and  the  lower  animals,  which  had  already  been 
spoken  of  in  ch.  i.,  is  no  proof  that  these  are  by  separate 
writers  ;  for  each  chapter  has  a  design  of  its  own,  which 
is  steadfastly  kept  in  view,  the  second  being  not  parallel 


THE   UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  111 

to,  but  the  sequel  of,  the  first.  Noah's  entry  into  the  ark 
is  twice  recorded,  without,  however,  any  implication  that 
two  documents  have  here  been  drawn  upon.  After  the 
general  statement  (vii.  7-9)  that  he  went  in  with  his  fam- 
ily and  various  species  of  living  things,  the  writer  wishes 
to  emphasize  more  exactly  that  he  went  in  on  the  very 
same  day  that  the  flood  began  (vs.  13-16),  and  so  restates 
it  with  that  view. 

(3)  In  the  simple  style  of  Hebrew  narrative  it  is  usual 
to  make  a  summary  statement  at  the  outset,  which  is 
then  followed  by  a  detailed  account  of  the  joarticulars  in- 
cluded under  it,  and  in  recording  the  execution  of  a  com- 
mand to  restate  the  injunctions  to  which  obedience  is 
rendered.  The  critics  seize  upon  such  passages  and  en- 
deavor to  turn  them  to  the  advantage  of  the  partition 
hypothesis,  but  in  so  doing  sunder  what  evidently 
belongs  together.  Thus  in  Gen.  xxviii.  5,  it  is  said  that 
Isaac  sent  away  Jacob  and  he  went  to  Padan-aram,  unto 
Laban,  the  brother  of  Rebekah.  His  actual  journey  is 
described  in  xxviii.  10-xxix.  13.  The  critics  rend  these 
asunder,  giving  the  former  to  P  and  the  latter  to  JE.  In 
like  manner  xxxi.  18  is  a  summary  statement  of  Jacob's 
leaving  Padan-aram  to  go  to  Isaac,  his  father,  unto  the 
land  of  Canaan.  This  is  followed  by  the  details  of  his 
journey  (xxxi.  20-xxxiii.  17),  all  which  is  given  to  JE, 
while  the  preHminary  statement  is  assigned  to  P.  So 
the  account  of  Jacob's  funeral  (1.  4-11)  is  given  to  J, 
the  summary  statement  of  the  burial  (vs.  12,  13)  to  P. 
A  like  severance  of  what  is  closely  related  is  made  where 
directions  are  given  and  carried  into  effect.  Thus  Sarah 
proposes  to  Abraham  that  he  should  take  Hagar  as  his 
wife,  to  which  he  consents  (xvi.  2)  ;  this  is  given  to  J. 
But  the  carrying  of  this  proposal  into  effect  (ver.  3)  is 
given  to  P.  The  Lord  bids  Moses  tell  the  children  of 
Israel  how  to  observe  the  passover  (Ex.  xii.  2-20)  ;  this  is 


112      THE  HIGHEE  CEITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

given  to  P.  In  obedience  to  tliis  direction  Moses  sum- 
mons the  elders  and  explains  the  observance  to  them  (vs. 
21-27) ;  this  is  given  to  J. 

(4)  Wellhausen  and  Dillmann  have  pushed  the  parti- 
tion by  means  of  alleged  parallels  to  the  most  extrava- 
gant lengths  by  what  they  call  doublets.  This  brings 
the  subdivision  down  in  many  cases  to  minute  para- 
graphs, or  even  single  clauses.  In  a  transaction  which 
is  accomplished  by  successive  steps  or  stages,  any  one  of 
these  steps  may  be  regarded  as  the  doublet  of  another  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  critic ;  that  is  to  say,  they  may  be 
considered  as  variant  statements  of  the  same  thing  by  a 
different  writer  and  accordingly  assigned  to  distinct  doc- 
uments. Or  any  repetition  of  the  same  thought  in  va- 
ried language,  by  which  the  writer  would  emphasize  his 
statement  or  more  fully  explain  his  meaning,  may  be 
reckoned  a  doublet,  and  the  clauses  partitioned  accord- 
ingly. Thus  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  two  things  are  recited  which 
awakened  the  hatred  of  Joseph's  brethren ;  first  (vs.  3, 
4),  his  father's  partiality  for  him,  secondly  (vs.  5-11),  his 
dreams,  which  he  related  to  them.  These  statements 
supplement  each  other,  and  must  be  combined  in  order 
to  a  complete  view  of  the  grounds  of  their  hostility. 
But  they  are  converted  into  two  different  modes  of  ac- 
counting for  the  same  thing,  the  former  being  the  con- 
ception entertained  by  J,  the  latter  that  of  E.  Again,  a 
doublet  is  found  in  the  two  clauses  of  xxi.  1,  "  The  LoKD 
visited  Sarah  as  he  had  said,  and  the  Lokd  did  unto 
Sarah  as  he  had  spoken."  These  are  reckoned  equiva- 
lents, and  are  divided  between  J  and  P,  whereas  the 
second  is  additional  to,  and  explanatory  of,  the  meaning 
of  the  first. 

The  alleged  doublets,  incoherences,  and  inconsisten- 
cies, by  which  the  attempt  is  made  to  bolster  up  the 
weakness  of  other  arguments  for  the  original  separate- 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  113 

ness  of  J  and  E,  are  capable  of  being  set  aside  in  detail. 
They  are  for  the  most  part  hypercritical  cavilling,  mag- 
nifying molehills  into  mountains,  and  measuring  ancient 
oriental  narratives  by  the  rules  of  modern  occidental 
discourse. 

IV.  The  fourth  argument  is  based  upon  alleged  differ- 
ences of  diction,  style,  and  ideas.  The  process  by  which 
these  are  ascertained  is  that  of  instituting  at  the  begin- 
ning a  careful  comparison  of  two  sections,  supposed  to 
be  from  different  documents,  such  as  the  first  two  sec- 
tions of  Genesis.  All  differences  of  thought  and  lan- 
guage between  them  are  minutely  noted,  and  the  com- 
parison is  then  extended  to  contiguous  sections,  and  so 
on,  gradually  and  guardedly,  to  the  remaining  portions 
of  the  Pentateuch,  all  being  assigned  to  one  or  the  other 
document  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  already  gathered, 
and  which  are  constantly  accumulating  as  the  work  pro- 
ceeds ;  the  utmost  pains  being  taken  so  to  adjust  the 
sections  that  all  references  from  one  to  the  other  shall 
fall  within  the  limits  of  the  same  document,  and  that  the 
intervening  passages  which  are  given  to  the  other  docu- 
ment shall  not  be  missed.  But  notwithstanding  the 
seeming  plausibility  of  this  method,  and  the  apparent 
scientific  caution  and  accuracy  with  which  it  is  con- 
ducted, it  is  altogether  fallacious.     For — 

(1)  The  argument  is  simply  reasoning  in  a  circle. 
The  differences  are  first  created  and  then  argued  from. 
The  documents  are  first  framed  to  correspond  with  cer- 
tain assumed  characteristic  differences,  and  then  their 
correspondence  with  these  characteristics  is  urged  in 
proof  of  their  objective  reality.  All  paragraphs,  clauses, 
and  parts  of  clauses,  in  which  a  certain  class  of  alleged 
criteria  occur,  are  systematically  assigned  to  one  docu- 
ment, and  those  having  another  class  of  criteria  are, 
with  like  regularity,  assigned  to  another  document ;  and 
8 


114     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

when  the  process  is  complete,  all  the  criteria  of  one  class 
are  in  one  document,  and  those  of  the  other  class  are  in 
the  other  document,  simply  because  the  critic  has  put 
them  there.  The  documents  accord  with  the  hypothesis 
because  they  have  been  constructed  by  the  hypothesis. 

(2)  The  proofs  relied  upon  for  diversity  of  diction  are 
factitious,  and  can  be  applied  with  like  effect  to  any 
book  of  any  author.  All  words  in  one  of  the  so-called 
documents  which  do  not  chance  to  be  found  in  the  oth- 
ers are  carefully  gathered  out  and  strung  together  in  a 
formidable  list.  Any  one  treatise  of  an  author  can  in 
this  way  equally  be  made  to  prove  that  any  other  of  his 
treatises  was  not  written  by  him,  or  any  part  of  one  to 
prove  that  the  remaining  portion  came  from  another 
hand.  That  certain  words  Avhich  occur  in  one  series  of 
paragraphs  or  sections  do  not  occur  in  another  proves 
nothing  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  writer  had  oc- 
casion to  use  them.  Especially  is  this  the  case  when 
the  words  adduced  are  in  familiar  and  common  use,  or 
are  the  only  words  suited  to  express  a  given  idea  ;  these 
obviously  cannot  be  classed  as  the  peculium  of  any 
one  writer.^  Also  when  they  are  of  infrequent  occur- 
rence, and  so  give  no  indication  of  a  writer's  habitual 
usage,  or  are  words  belonging  to  one  particular  spe- 
cies of  composition.  It  is  not  surprising  that  poetic 
words  should  not  be  found  in  a  document  from  which 
poetic  passages  are  systematically  excluded ;  or  that 
legal  words  and  phrases  should  be  limited  to  the  docu- 
ment to  which  the  legal  passages  are  regularly  assigned  ; 
or  that  words  appropriate  to  ordinary  narrative  should 

'  Mj  friend  Professor  McCurdy,  of  Toronto  University,  pertinently 
suggests  in  a  private  note  that  much  of  the  critical  argument  from  dic- 
tion would  prove  too  much  if  it  proved  anything.  If  words  of  this  de- 
scription furnish  a  criterion,  it  would  imply  not  merely  a  diversity  of 
writers,  but  writers  using  different  dialects  or  languages. 


THE  UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  115 

chiefly  abound  in  those  documents  to  which  the  bulk  of 
such  narrative  is  given.  Since  the  entire  ritual  law  is 
given  to  P,  and  the  great  body  of  the  history,  together 
with  all  the  poetical  passages,  to  JE,  a  corresponding 
difference  of  diction  and  style  must  necessarily  result 
from  this  diversity  of  theme,  and  of  the  character  of  the 
composition,  without  being  by  any  means  suggestive  of  a 
difference  of  writers.  When  the  words  alleged  to  be 
characteristic  of  one  of  the  documents  occur  but  rarely 
in  that  document,  and  are  absent  from  the  great  majority 
of  its  sections,  this  must,  on  the  critical  hypothesis,  be 
regarded  as  accidental ;  so  may  their  absence  from  the 
sections  of  the  other  document  be. 

It  must  also  be  remembered  that  a  writer  who  has  a 
reasonable  command  of  language  may  vary  his  expres- 
sions in  conveying  the  same  idea.  It  is  not  a  safe  as- 
sumption that  he  cannot  use  words  or  phrases  in  any 
place  which  he  has  not  used  elsewhere.  Thus  Dillmann 
('*  Die  Biicher,  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  p.  619),  argues 
that  a  peculiar  diction  is  not  ahvays  indicative  of  separate 
authorship.  After  saying  that  the  passage  of  which  he 
is  speaking  has  some  of  the  characteristics  of  J,  but 
*'  much  more  that  is  unusual  and  peculiar,"  he  adds,  "  The 
most  of  this  nature  may  be  accounted  for  partly  by  the 
poetic  and  oratorical  style,  and  partly  by  the  new  and 
peculiar  objects  and  ideas  that  were  to  be  expressed, 
and  it  can  scarcely  suffice  to  justify  the  conclusion  of  an 
altogether  peculiar  writer,  from  whom  we  have  nothing 
besides." 

(3)  AVhen  synonymous  expressions  are  used  to  con- 
vey the  same  idea  this  does  not  justify  the  assumption 
that  they  have  been  taken  from  different  documents,  and 
that  they  severally  represent  the  usage  of  distinct  writ- 
ers. They  are  not  to  be  explained  in  this  superficial  and 
mechanical  manner.     Synonyms    are   not  usually  exact 


116      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

counterparts.  There  is  commonly  a  distinction,  more  or 
less  clear,  which  may  be  observed  between  them,  some 
slight  difference  in  their  meaning  or  their  association, 
which  governs  their  employment  and  leads  to  the  use  of 
one  rather  than  another  in  particular  connections. 

(4)  The  alleged  criteria  frequently  conflict  with  each 
other,  and  with  the  criteria  derived  from  the  divine 
names.  Words  or  phrases  said  to  be  characteristic  of 
one  writer  meet  in  the  same  section,  or  even  in  the  same 
sentence,  with  those  that  are  said  to  characterize  the 
other.  In  such  cases  the  critics  resort  to  various  sub- 
terfuges to  relieve  the  situation.  Sometimes  they  admit 
that  what  has  been  considered  characteristic  of  one  docu- 
ment is  found  likewise  in  another,  which  is  equivalent  to 
a  confession  that  it  is  not  a  distinctive  criterion  at  all. 
At  other  times  they  claim  that  two  texts  have  been 
mingled,  and  that  expressions  or  clauses  from  one  docu- 
ment have  been  interpolated  in  the  other,  whereas  these 
blended  criteria  simply  prove  that  the  same  writer  freely 
uses  both  in  the  same  connection.  Again,  at  other  times 
they  claim  that  such  passages  belong  originally  to 
neither  document,  but  are  insertions  by  the  redactor, 
who  is  always  at  hand  to  account  for  phenomena  at  vari- 
ance with  the  hypothesis,  when  no  other  mode  of  escape 
is  possible.  It  is  obviously  possible  by  such  devices  to 
carry  through  any  hypothesis,  however  preposterous.  If 
all  opposing  phenomena  can  be  set  aside  as  interpola- 
tions, or  as  the  work  of  the  redactor,  the  most  refractory 
texts  can  be  tortured  into  accordance  with  the  critic's 
arbitrary  presuppositions. 

(5)  The  critic  is  engaged  in  solving  an  indeterminate 
equation.  The  line  of  partition  depends  upon  the 
criteria,  and  the  criteria  depend  upon  the  line  of  parti- 
tion ;  and  both  of  these  are  unknown  quantities.  Of 
necessity  the  work  is  purely  hypothetical  from  first  to 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  117 

last,  and  the  liability  to  error  increases  with  every  step 
of  the  process.  A  mistake  in  the  criteria  will  lead  to  a 
wrong  j)artition,  and  this  to  further  false  criteria,  and  so 
on  indefinitely  ;  and  there  is  no  sure  method  of  correct- 
ing or  even  ascertaining  the  error.  The  critic  resembles 
a  traveller  who  without  guide  or  compass  is  seeking  to 
make  his  way  through  a  trackless  forest,  so  dense  as  to 
shut  out  the  sight  of  the  heavens.  He  will  inevitably 
diverge  from  a  straight  course,  and  may  gradually  and 
im23erceptibly  be  turned  in  the  opposite  direction  from 
that  in  which  he  started.  Or  he  may  prove  to  be  only  a 
dreamer,  whose  beautiful  creations  are  but  airy  phan- 
toms. 

(6)  The  complexity  of  the  problem  with  which  the 
critic  has  undertaken  to  deal  becomes  more  obvious  the 
further  he  proceeds.  At  the  outset  his  work  is  compara- 
tively simple;  the  fewer  the  criteria  the  more  readily 
they  are  applied.  By  the  aid  of  such  ingenious  devices 
as  have  already  been  indicated  he  makes  his  way 
through  Genesis  with  tolerable  ease.  But  in  the  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  difficulties  crowd  upon  him,  as 
is  shown  by  the  wide  divergence  of  the  critics  in  their 
efforts  to  cope  with  them,  and  in  the  book  of  Joshua  it 
becomes  a  veritable  medley.  It  is  the  natm^al  result  of 
an  attempt  to  apply  criteria  gathered  elsewhere  to  fresh 
passages  for  which  they  have  no  affinity.  Partitions  are 
made  which  find  no  sanction  in  an  unbiassed  examina- 
tion of  the  passages  themselves,  and  are  merely  forced 
upon  them  for  the  sake  of  consistency  with  a  previously 
adopted  scheme  of  division.  This  is  repeatedly  con- 
fessed by  the  critics  themselves.  Thus  Wellhausen,'  in 
beginning  his  discussion  of  Gen.  xxxvii.-l.  says :  "  The 
principal  source  for  this  last  section  of  Genesis  also  is 

'  Jahrbiicher  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie,  1876,  p.  442,  or  in  the  sepa- 
rate reprint,  Die  Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  p.  53. 


il8     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

JE.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  this  work,  here  as  else- 
where, is  compounded  of  J  and  E ;  our  former  results 
constrain  to  this  assumption,  and  would  be  shaken  if  this 
were  not  capable  of  proof." 

The  various  arguments  urged  in  support  of  the  divi- 
sive hypothesis  in  its  different  forms  have  now  been  suc- 
cessively examined  and  found  wanting.  The  alternation 
of  divine  names  can  be  otherwise  explained,  and  more- 
over it  can  only  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  parti- 
tion hypothesis  by  a  free  use  of  the  redactor,  and  the 
assumption  of  repeated  changes  of  the  text.  Ex.  vi.  3 
has  not  the  meaning  that  the  critics  attribute  to  it.  The 
continuity  of  the  documents  is  broken  by  serious  chasms, 
or  maintained  by  very,  questionable  methods ;  and  it  is 
necessary  to  assume  in  numerous  instances  that  the 
documents  originally  contained  paragraphs  and  sections 
similar  to  those  which  the  critics  have  sundered  from 
them.  The  alleged  parallel  passages  are  for  the  most 
part  falsely  assumed  identifications  of  distinct  events. 
And  the  diversity  of  diction,  style,  and  ideas  is  made 
out  by  utterly  fallacious  and  inconclusive  methods.  But 
while  the  attempted  proof  of  lack  of  unity  signally  fails, 
the  positive  evidence  of  unity  abides  and  never  can  be 
nullified.  The  great  outstanding  proof  of  it  is  the  un- 
broken continuity  of  the  history,  the  consistent  plan 
upon  which  the  whole  is  prepared,  and  the  numerous 
cross-references,  which  bind  it  all  together  as  the  work 
of  one  mind.  Separate  and  independent  documents 
mechanically  pieced  together  could  no  more  produce 
such  an  appearance  of  unity  as  reigns  throughout  the 
Pentateuch  than  a  faultless  statue  could  be  formed  out 
of  discordant  fragments  of  dissimilar  materials. 

The  futility  of  the  methods  by  which  the  Pentateuch 
has  been  parcelled  into  different  documents  may  further 
be  shown  by  the  readiness  with  which  they  can  be  ap- 


THE  UNITY   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 


119 


plied,  and  with  equal  success,  to  writings  tlie  unity  of 
wliicli  is  indisputable.  The  fact  that  a  narrative  can  be 
so  divided  as  to  form  from  it  two  continuous  narratives, 
is  reckoned  by  the  critics  a  demonstration  of  its  compo- 
site character,  and  a  proof  that  the  parts  into  which  it  has 
been  severed  are  the  original  sources  from  which  it  has 
been  compounded.  This  may  be  tested  by  a  couple  of 
passages  selected  at  random — the  parables  of  The  Prodi- 
gal Son  and  of  The  Good  Samaritan. 

The  Pkodigaij  Son,  Luke  xv.  11-32. 
A  B 


11.  A  certain  man  had  two 
sons  :  12.  and  the  younger  of 
them  said  to  his  father,  Father, 
give  me  the  portion  of  thy  sub- 
stance that  falleth  to  me.  .  .  . 
13.  And  not  many  days  after  the 
younger  son  gathered  all  to- 
gether, .  .  .  and  there  he 
wasted  his  substance  with  riot- 
ous living.    •    .     • 


14b.  and  he  began  to  be  in 
want. 


16b.  And  no  man  gave  unto 
him. 

20.  And  he  arose,  and  came  to 
his  father  ;  .  .  .  and  he  ran, 
and  fell  on  his  neck,  and  kissed 
him.  21.  And  the  son  said  un- 
to him,   Father,  I  have  sinned 


(A  certain  man  had  two  sons :) 


12b.  and    he    divided 
them  his  living. 


unto 


13b.  And  (one  of  them)  took 
his  journey  into  a  far  country. 
.  .  .  14.  And  when  he  had 
spent  all,  there  arose  a  mighty 
famine  in  that  country.  .  .  . 
15.  And  he  went  and  joined  him- 
self to  one  of  the  citizens  of  that 
country ;  and  he  sent  him  into 
his  fields  to  feed  swine.  16.  And 
he  would  fain  have  been  filled 
with  the  husks  that  the  swine 
did  eat.  .  .  .  17.  But  when 
he  came  to  himself  he  said,  How 
many  hired  servants  of  my  fath- 
er's have  bread  enough  and  to 
spare,  and  I  perish  here  with 
hunger !  18.  I  will  arise  and  go 
to  my  father,  and  will  say  unto 


120     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 


A 

against  heaven,  and  in  thy  sight : 
I  am  no  more  worthy  to  be  called 
thy  son.  22.  But  the  father  said 
to  his  servants,  Bring  forth 
quickly  the  best  robe,  and  put  it 
on  him ;  and  put  a  ring  on  his 
hand,  and  shoes  on  his  feet:  .  .  . 
24:.  for  this  my  son  was  dead, 
and  is  alive  again.  .  .  .  And 
they  began  to  be  merry.  25. 
Now  his  elder  son  was  in  the 
field  :  and  as  he  came  and  drew 
nigh  to  the  house,  .  .  .  28.  he 
was  angry,  and  would  not  go  in  : 
and  his  father  came  out,  and  en- 
treated him.  29.  But  he  an- 
swered and  said  to  his  father,  Lo, 
these  many  years  do  I  serve  thee, 
and  I  never  transgressed  a  com- 
mandment of  thine :  and  yet 
thou  never  gavest  me  a  kid,  that 
I  might  make  merry  with  my 
friends  :  30.  but  when  this  thy 
son  came,  which  hath  devoured 
thy  living  with  harlots,  thou 
killedst  for  him  the  fatted  calf. 
31.  And  he  said  unto  him.  Son, 
thou  art  ever  with  me,  and  all 
that  is  mine  is  thine.  32.  But 
it  was  meet  to  make  merry  and 
be  glad  :  for  this  thy  brother 
was  dead,  and  is  alive  again. 


B 

him,  Father,  I  have  sinned 
against  heaven,  and  in  thy  sight : 
19.  I  am  no  more  worthy  to  be 
called  thy  son  :  make  me  as  one 
of  thy  hired  servants.  .  .  . 
20b.  But  while  he  was  yet  afar 
off,  his  father  saw  him,  and  was 
moved  with  compassion  :  .  .  . 
23.  and  (said)  Bring  the  fatted 
calf,  and  kill  it,  and  let  us  eat, 
and  make  merry.  .  .  .  24b.  he 
was  lost,  and  is  found.  .  .  . 
25b.  (And  the  other  son)  heard 
music  and  dancing.  26.  And  he 
called  to  him  one  of  the  ser- 
vants, and  inquired  what  these 
things  might  be.  27.  And  he 
said  unto  him,  Thy  brother  is 
come  ;  and  thy  father  hath  killed 
the  fatted  calf,  because  he  hath 
received  him  safe  and  sound 
.  .  .  32b.  and  he  was  lost 
and  is  found. 


There  are  here  two  complete  narratives,  agreeing  in 
some  points,  and  disagreeing  in  others,  and  each  has  its 
special  characteristics.  The  only  deficiencies  are  en- 
closed in  parentheses,  and  may  be  readily  explained  a?, 
omissions  by  the  redactor  in  effecting  the  combination.    A 


THE  UNITY   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH  121 

clause  must  be  supplied  at  the  beginning  of  B,  a  subject 
is  wanting  in  ver.  13b,  and  ver.  2ob,  and  the  verb  "  said  " 
is  wanting  in  ver.  23.  As  these  omissions  occur  exclu- 
sively in  B,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  redactor  placed  A 
at  the  basis,  and  incorporated  B  into  it  with  only  such 
slight  changes  as  were  necessary  to  adapt  it  to  this  pur- 
pose. 

A  and  B  agree  that  there  were  two  sons,  one  of  whom 
received  a  portion  of  his  father's  property,  and  by  his 
own  fault  was  reduced  to  great  destitution,  in  consequence 
of  which  he  returned  penitently  to  his  father,  and  ad- 
dressed him  in  language  which  is  nearly  identical  in 
both  accounts.  The  father  received  him  with  great  ten- 
derness and  demonstrations  of  joy,  which  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  other  son. 

The  differences  are  quite  as  striking  as  the  points  of 
agreement.  A  distinguishes  the  sons  as  elder  and 
younger  ;  B  makes  no  mention  of  their  relative  ages.  In 
A  the  younger  obtained  his  portion  by  solicitation,  and 
the  father  retained  the  remainder  in  his  own  possession ; 
in  B  the  father  divided  his  property  between  both  of  his 
sons  of  his  own  motion.  In  A  the  prodigal  remained  in 
his  father's  neighborhood,  and  reduced  himself  to  penury 
by  riotous  living ;  in  B  he  went  to  a  distant  country  and 
spent  all  his  property,  but  there  is  no  intimation  that  he 
indulged  in  unseemly  excesses.  It  would  rather  appear 
that  he  was  injudicious ;  and  to  crown  his  misfortunes 
there  occurred  a  severe  famine.  His  fault  seems  to  have 
consisted  in  having  gone  so  far  away  from  his  father  and 
from  the  holy  land,  and  in  engaging  in  the  unclean  occu- 
pation of  tending  swine.  In  A  the  destitution  seems  to 
have  been  chiefly  want  of  clothing  ;  in  B  want  of  food. 
Hence  in  A  the  father  directed  the  best  robe  and  ring  and 
shoes  to  be  brought  for  him  ;  in  B  the  fatted  calf  was  killed. 
In  B  the  son  came  from  a  distant  land,  and  the  father  saw 


122      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

him  afar  off ;  in  A  lie  came  from  the  neighborhood,  and 
the  father  ran  at  once  and  fell  on  his  neck  and  kissed 
him.  In  B  he  had  been  engaged  in  a  menial  occupation, 
and  so  bethought  himself  of  his  father's  hired  servants, 
and  asked  to  be  made  a  servant  himself ;  in  A  he  had 
been  living  luxuriously,  and  while  confessing  his  un- 
worthiness  makes  no  request  to  be  put  on  the  footing  of 
a  servant.  In  A  the  father  speaks  of  his  son  having  been 
dead  because  of  his  profligate  life ;  in  B  of  his  having 
been  lost  because  of  his  absence  in  a  distant  land.  In  A, 
but  not  in  B,  the  other  son  was  displeased  at  the  recep- 
tion given  to  the  prodigal.  And  here  it  would  appear 
that  R  has  slightly  altered  the  text.  The  elder  son  must 
have  said  to  his  father  in  A,  "  When  this  thy  son  came, 
which  hath  devoured  thy  substance  with  harlots,  thou 
didst  put  on  him  the  best  robe."  The  redactor  has  here 
substituted  the  B  word  "  living  "  ^  for  "  substance,"  which 
is  used  by  A ;  and  with  the  view  of  making  a  better  con- 
trast with  "  kid  "  he  has  introduced  the  B  phrase,  "  thou 
killedst  for  him  the  fatted  calf." 


The  Good  Samaritan,  Luke  x.  29-37. 


29.  But  he  (the  lawyer,  ver. 
25)  desiring  to  justify  himself, 
said  unto  Jesus,  And  who  is  my 
neighbor  ?  30.  Jesus  made  an- 
swer ctnd  said,  A  certain  man  was 
going  down  from  Jerusalem  to 
Jericho  ;  .  .  .  and  they  beat 
him,  .  .  .  leaving  him  half 
dead.  31.  And  by  chance  a  cer- 
tain priest  was  going  down  that 


B 


30b.  And  (a  certain  man)  *  fell 
among  robbers,  which  both 
stripped  him  ,  .  .  and  de- 
parted.    .     .     . 


*  Omitted  by  R.    ( 


). 


*  No  scholar  will  need  to  be  informed  that  "living "ver.  13,  has  a 
different  sense  and  represents  a  different  word  in  the  original  from  ' '  liv- 
ing," ver.  18. 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 


123 


way :  and  wlien  he  saw  him,  he 
passed  by  on  the  other  side.  .  .  . 

33.  But  a  certain  Samaritan, 
as  he  journeyed,  came  where  he 
was :     .     .     . 

34.  and    came    to    him,    and 
bound  up  his  wounds,  pouring 
on  them  oil  and  wine,    .    . 
and  took  care  of  him. 


36  Which  of  these  [three]*, 
thinkest  thou,  proved  neighbor 
unto  him?  ...  37.  And  he 
said.  He  that  showed  mercy  on 
him. 


*  Inserted  by 


32.  And  [in  like  manner]  *  a 
Levite,  [also]  *  when  he  came  to 
the  place,  [and  saw  him,  passed 
by  on  the  other  side.]  * 

33b.  and  when  he  saw  him, 
was  moved  with  compassion.  .  .  . 

34b.  And  he  set  him  on  his 
own  beast,  and  brought  him  to 
an  inn.  .  .  .  35.  And  on 
the  morrow  he  took  out  two 
pence,  and  gave  them  to  the 
host,  and  said.  Take  care  of  him  ; 
and  whatsoever  thou  spendest 
more,  I,  when  I  comeback  again, 
will  repay  thee. 

37b.  And  Jesus  said  unto  him 
.     .     .     that  fell  among  the  rob- 
bers,    .     .     .     Go,  and  do  thou 
likewise. 
R[  ]. 


Both  these  narratives  are  complete ;  only  a  subject 
must  be  supplied  in  B,  ver.  30b,  the  omission  of  which 
was  rendered  necessary  by  its  being  combined  with  A. 
"  Three  "  is  substituted  for  "  two  "in  A,  ver.  36,  for  a 
like  reason.  R  has  tampered  with  the  text  and  materi- 
ally altered  the  sense  in  ver.  32,  from  his  desire  to  put  the 
Levite  on  the  same  plane  with  the  priest  in  ver.  31,  the 
language  of  which  he  has  borrowed ;  the  genuine  text  of 
B  will  be  restored  by  omitting  the  insertions  by  R,  which 
are  included  in  brackets.  He  has  likewise  transposed  a 
brief  clause  of  B,  in  ver.  37b,  and  added  it  at  the  end  of 
ver.  36.  These  changes  naturally  resulted  from  his  mak- 
ing A  the  basis,  and  modifying  what  he  has  inserted 
from  B  into  accordance  with  it.  Hence  the  necessity  of 
making  it  appear  that  it  was  not  the  Levite,  but  the 
Samaritan,  who  befriended  the  injured  traveller,  and  that 


124     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

Jesus  spoke  not  to  the  traveller,  but  to  the  lawyer.  In 
all  other  respects  the  original  texts  of  the  two  narratives 
remain  unaltered. 

Both  narratives  agree  that  a  man  grievously  abused 
by  certain  parties  was  treated  with  generous  kindness  by 
a  stranger;  and  that  Jesus  deduced  a  practical  lesson 
from  it.     But  they  differ  materially  in  details. 

A  relates  his  story  as  a  parable  of  Jesus  in  answer  to 
a  lawyer's  question.  B  makes  no  mention  of  the  lawyer 
or  his  question,  but  seems  to  be  relating  a  real  occur- 
rence. 

The  spirit  of  the  two  is  quite  different.  A  is  anti- 
Jewish,  B  pro-Jewish.  In  A  the  aggressors  are  Jews, 
people  of  Jerusalem  or  Jericho  or  both,  and  a  priest  piti- 
lessly leaves  the  sufferer  to  his  fate ;  while  it  is  a  Samar- 
itan, with  whom  the  Jews  were  in  perpetual  feud,  who 
takes  pity  on  him.  In  B  the  aggressors  are  robbers, 
outlaws  whose  nationality  is  not  defined,  and  it  is  a  Le- 
vite  who  shows  mercy. 

Both  the  maltreatment  and  the  act  of  generosity  are 
different.  In  A  the  sufferer  is  beaten  and  half  killed, 
and  needs  to  have  his  wounds  bound  up  and  liniments 
applied,  which  is  done  by  his  benefactor  on  the  spot. 
In  B  he  was  stripped  of  all  he  had  and  left  destitute, 
but  no  personal  injury  was  inflicted ;  accordingly  he  was 
taken  to  an  inn,  and  his  wants  there  provided  for  at  the 
expense  of  the  Levite  who  befriended  him. 

The  lesson  inculcated  is  different.  In  A  it  is  that  the 
duty  of  loving  one's  neighbor  is  not  limited  to  those  of 
the  same  nation,  nor  annulled  by  national  antipathies. 
In  B  it  is  that  he  who  has  been  befriended  himself 
should  befriend  others. 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  multiply  illustrations.  Those 
now  adduced  are  sufficient  to  give  an  idea  of  the  method 
by  which  the  critics  undertake  to  effect  the  partition  of 


THE   UNITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  125 

the  Pentateuch  ;  and  to  show  how  they  succeed  in  creat- 
ing discrepancies  and  contradictions,  where  none  really 
exist,  by  simply  sundering  what  properly  belongs  to- 
gether. The  ease  with  which  these  results  can  be  ac- 
complished, where  obviously  they  have  no  possible  sig- 
nificance, shows  how  fallacious  and  inconclusive  this 
style  of  argument  is.  No  dependence  can  be  placed  upon 
a  process  that  leads  to  palpably  erroneous  conclusions  in 
other  cases.  An  argument  that  will  prove  everything, 
proves  nothing.  And  a  style  of  critical  analysis  which 
can  be  made  to  prove  everything  composite  is  not  to 
be  trusted. 

The  readiness  with  which  a  brief,  simple  narrative 
yields  to  critical  methods  has  been  sufficiently  shown 
above.  That  extended  didactic  composition  is  not  proof 
against  it  is  shown  in  a  very  clever  and  effective  manner 
in  *'  Romans  Dissected,"  by  E.  D.  McEealsham,  the  pseu- 
donym of  Professor  C.  M.  Mead,  D.D.,  of  Hartford 
Theological  Seminary.  The  result  of  his  ingenious  and 
scholarly  discussion  is  to  demonstrate  that  as  plausible 
an  argument  can  be  made  from  diction,  style,  and  doc- 
trinal contents  for  the  fourfold  division  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  as  for  the  composite  character  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. 

Two  additional  incongruities  which  beset  the  partition 
of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  briefly  mentioned  here,  as 
they  are  illustrated  by  the  specimens  above  given  of  the 
application  of  like  methods  to  the  parables.  The  first 
is,  that  the  narratives  into  which  the  critics  resolve  the 
Pentateuchal  history,  and  from  which  they  claim  that 
this  has  been  compomided,  are,  as  a  whole  and  in  all 
their  parts,  inferior  in  symmetry  and  structural  arrange- 
ment to  the  history  as  it  lies  in  the  existing  text.  On 
the  critical  hypothesis  precisely  the  reverse  should  be  the 
case.     If  the  history  is  a  conglomerate,  in  which  hetero- 


126      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

geneous  materials  have  been  compacted,  the  critical  sev- 
erance which  restores  the  component  parts  to  their  orig- 
inal connection  and  exhibits  each  of  the  primary  narra- 
tives in  its  pristine  form,  and  purged  of  all  interpolations 
and  extraneous  matter,  must  remove  disfigurements  and 
reunite  the  broken  links  of  connection  designed  by  the 
early  narrators.  The  intermingling  of  goods  of  different 
patterns  has  a  confusing  effect.  It  is  only  when  they  are 
separated,  and  each  is  viewed  by  itself,  that  its  proper 
pattern  can  be  traced  and  its  real  beauty  discerned. 
But  when  the  separation  spoils  and  mars  the  fabric,  we 
must  conclude  that  what  has  taken  place  is  not  the  reso- 
lution of  a  compound  into  its  primary  constituents,  but 
the  violent  rending  asunder  of  what  was  really  a  unit, 
the  breaking  of  a  graceful  statue  into  misshapen  frag- 
ments. 

The  second  incongruity  to  be  alluded  to  here  concerns 
what  the  critics  consider  the  restored  original  narratives, 
not  taken  separately,  each  by  itself,  but  in  their  relation 
to  one  another.  The  critics  take  what  in  its  present 
form,  as  it  lies  before  us  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  harmoni- 
ous, symmetrical,  and  complete,  and  they  deduce  from  it 
two  or  more  narratives,  between  which  there  are  discrep- 
ancies, contrarieties,  and  contradictions ;  and  these  are 
produced  simply  by  the  putting  asunder  of  what  in  the 
existing  text  to  all  appearance  properly  belongs  together. 
And  it  thereby  writes  its  own  condemnation.  Harmony 
does  not  arise  from  combining  the  incongruous,  but  dis- 
cord naturally  follows  upon  the  derangement  of  parts, 
which  properly  fitted  into  one  another  are  harmonious. 

A  word  may  further  be  added  concerning  the  marvellous 
perspicacity,  verging  on  omniscience,  claimed  by  the  crit- 
ics, who  undertake  to  determine  with  the  utmost  assurance 
the  authorship  not  merely  of  books,  or  large  sections  or 
paragraphs,  but  of  individual  sentences  and  clauses,  and 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  127 

fragments  of  clauses.  They  undertake  to  point  out  to 
the  very  last  degree  of  nicety  and  minuteness  not  only 
what  J  and  E  and  D  and  P  have  separately  written,  how- 
ever involved  these  may  be  with  one  another,  but  what 
precise  changes  each  of  a  series  of  redactors  has  intro- 
duced into  the  original  text  of  each,  and  what  glosses 
have  been  added  by  a  still  later  hand,  and  what  modifi- 
cations were  introduced  into  the  successive  editions 
through  which  the  principal  documents  have  severally 
passed  before  or  since  their  combination.  They  further 
profess  to  be  able  to  distinguish  the  primary  and  some- 
times discordant  elements  which  entered  into  the  orig- 
inal constitution  of  the  principal  documents,  and  what 
belongs  to  the  various  stages  by  which  P  was  brought 
by  a  series  of  diaskeuasts  to  its  present  complexity  and 
elaboration.  One  would  think  that  the  critics  would  be 
awed  by  the  formidable  character  of  the  task  which  they 
have  set  for  themselves.  But  they  proceed  with  un- 
daunted front,  as  though  they  had  an  unerring  scent 
which  could  track  their  game  through  the  most  intricate 
doublings  and  convolutions ;  and  as  though  positive  as- 
sertions would  compensate  for  the  dubious  nature  of  the 
grounds  upon  which  their  decisions  often  rest. 

If  further  proof  were  needed  of  the  precarious  character 
of  the  methods  and  results  of  this  style  of  subjective 
criticism,  it  is  abundantly  supplied  by  similar  exploits 
conducted  in  other  fields,  where  they  can  be  subjected  to 
the  sure  test  of  ascertained  facts.  The  havoc  wrought  in 
the  writings  of  Homer,  belonging  to  a  remote  antiquity, 
or  in  the  "  Nibelungenlied,"  produced  in  the  obscurity  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  is  not  so  much  to  our  present  purpose 
as  the  systematic  onset  upon  Cicero's  orations  against 
Catiline,  of  whose  genuineness  there  is  indubitable  proof. 
Madvig's  account  of  the  matter,  to  Avhich  my  attention 
was  directed  by  Professor  West,  of  Princeton  University, 


128     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

and  of  wliicli  lie  has  obligingly  furnislied  the  translation, 
is  here  given  in  a  note.^ 

'  "  Let  us  relate  the  history  of  the  discussion.  It  "began  with  F.  A. 
Wolf,*  who  cast  doubt  in  a  general  way  upon  several  of  Cicero's  Ora- 
tions. Following  Wolf  came  Eichstaedt,  who  reviewed  Wolf's  book  in 
1802,  and  took  the  position  that  at  least  one  of  the  Catilinarian  Orations 
ought  to  be  included  in  the  condemnation  bestowed  upon  otlier  orations. 
Wolf  quickly  followed  Eichstaedt  and  condemned  the  Third  Oration, 
and  in  subsequent  comments  and  remarks  stated  the  question  in  such  a 
way  as  to  leave  it  uncertain  which  oration  he  meant,  or  whether  it  was 
one  of  two  orations,  and  so,  in  1826,  Clude,  thinking  he  was  following 
out  the  opinion  of  Wolf,  proved  to  his  own  satisfaction  and  the  satisfac- 
tion of  some  others,  that  it  was  the  Second  Oration  which  was  spurious. 
But  shortly  afterward  (in  1827)  Benecke,  by  producing  the  very  words 
of  Wolf  from  one  of  his  letters  showed  that  Wolf  meant  the  Third  Ora- 
tion. In  the  meantime  the  Fourth  Oration  had  fallen  under  the  dis- 
pleasure of  other  critics,  notably  Zimmermann  and  Bloch,  and  so  Alirens, 
in  1832,  passed  sentence  on  the  unfortunate  oration,  embracing  the 
Third  Oration  at  the  same  time  in  his  condemnation.  Finally  came 
Orelli,  in  1836,  and  fearing,  I  suppose,  that  such  inconsistencies  of  opin- 
ion would  end  in  contempt  and  ridicule,  decided  that  all  three  were 
spurious. 

*'In  addition  to  other  evidence  from  ancient  writers  which  was  easily 
answered,  there  stood  opposed  to  this  conclusion  the  authority  of  Cicero 
himself,  who  in  the  First  Epistle  of  the  Second  Book  of  his  Letters  to 
Atticus  makes  abundant  reference  to  his  own  consular  orations,  and 
enumerates  one  hy  one  the  four  Orations  against  Catiline. 

"  And  so  no  other  course  was  left  the  critics  except  to  come  to  the  in- 
credible conchision  that  genuine  orations  of  Cicero,  delivered  on  a  most 
famous  occasion,  had  so  faded  out  of  remembrance  by  the  time  of  Au- 
gustus (for  Ahrens  admits  that  the  orations  we  possess  are  as  old  as  this) 
that  spurious  orations  could  be  put  in  their  place  and  meet  with  accept- 
ance, without  any  contemporary  objection,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  one 
genuine  oration  out  of  the  four  still  remained,  and  was  put  together 
with  the  three  false  ones.  Orelli  met  the  emergency  heroically  {forti 
remedio),  for  he  cut  out  the  whole  of  this  passage  from  the  middle  of 
Cicero's  Letter  to  Atticus.  Consequently  no  statement  remained  regard- 
ing the  various  Catilinarian  orations  published  by  Cicero  himself. 
Thereupon  Orelli  excogitated  a  pleasant  hypothesis  {fabulam  lepidam) 
to  the  effect  that  a  forger  first  supplied  the  three  orations,  and  then,  in 
order  to  insure  their  acceptance,  inserted  in  the  Letter  of  Cicero  a  forged 

*  The  critic  of  Homer  and  father  of  the  destructive  literary  criticism. 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  129 

My  colleague,  Dr.  Warfield,  has  also  pointed  me  to  an 
instructive  instance  wliich  is  still  more  recent.  It  is 
thus  described  by  Dr.  Heinrici  :  ^  "  How  easily  one  is 
led  astray  by  assuming  a  course  of  thought  supposed 
to  be  requisite,  is  shown  in  a  very  instructive  man- 
statement  in  regard  to  these  same  orations.  But  inasmuch  as  Cicero's 
Letters  were  then  in  circulation,  we  might  ask,  How  was  it  that  this 
forger  inserted  his  forgery  not  only  in  his  own  copy  of  Cicero's  Letters, 
but  in  the  copies  of  all  other  readers  whom  he  wished  to  deceive,  and 
so  managed  it  that  no  other  copy  of  this  Letter  should  remain  extent 
written  in  any  other  manner  ?  But  the  same  critical  shrewdness  helps 
the  critics  at  this  juncture.  The  forger  is  that  very  man  who  edited 
the  volume  of  Letters  after  Cicero's  death,  namely,  Marcus  TuUius  Tiro, 
the  freedman.  What!  Tiro,  the  faithful  freedman  to  whom  Cicero  en- 
trusted his  Letters,  and  who  wrote  the  life  of  his  dead  patron  accurately 
and  affectionately,  and  upon  whom  no  suspicion  ever  fell,  was  he  a 
forger?  *Yes,  indeed,'  they  answered,  'and  he  did  it  with  good  in- 
tention.' Orelli  says,  'He  thought  that  he  would  honor  his  noble  pa- 
tron most  if  Cicero's  illustrious  performance  were  made  celebrated  not 
merely  by  one  but  by  four  orations.'  What  a  marvellous  license  of 
imagination  and  credulity  of  doubt!  So,  then,  Tiro  did  not  think  the 
matter  would  be  famous  by  reason  of  his  narrative  of  Cicero's  life,  but, 
although  he  had  never  uttered  a  word  in  a  public  assembly,  or  written 
even  a  short  oration,  he  yet  thought  that  the  glory  of  his  patron,  the 
greatest  orator  of  Rome,  would  be  increased  by  Tiro's  forging  orations 
under  Cicero's  name.  Yet  why  not  ?  For  the  very  critic,  who  is  every- 
where finding  fault  with  the  wretched  inconsistencies  of  Tiro's  writings, 
yet  in  former  times  had  actually  admired  Cicero  on  account  of  these 
false  orations." — Madvig  :  Opuscula  Academica,  Hauniae,  1887,  pp.  671 
sqq. 

Dr.  West  adds:  "Madvig's  reductio  ad  dbsurdum  is  complete. 
There  are  numerous  other  instances  in  Latin  criticism  that  are  in- 
structive. Ribbeck's  youthful  venture  at  the  text  of  Juvenal,  Peerl- 
kamp's  exploits  in  Horace,  the  discussion  forty  years  ago  regarding  the 
treatise  De  Trinitate,  ascribed  to  Boethius,  and  the  treatment  of  Caesar's 
Commentaries  on  the  Gallic  War,  ought  not  to  be  forgotten.  Schoell's 
slashing  editing  of  Plautus  in  our  own  time  is  also  a  case  in  point. 
Happily  the  spirit  which  at  present  rules  Latin  studies  is  historical  and 
inductive.  The  other  reminds  us  of  the  old  proverb  about  the  Sabines 
— Sabini  quod  volunt  somniant.''^ 

'  Meyer's  Kommentar  iiber  den  1  Cor.,  seventh  edit.,  1888,  Vorrede. 
9 


130     THE  HIGHER  CEITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ner  by  Scherer's  ingenious  analysis  of  the  Prologue 
of  Faust  in  his  Goethe-Studies.  It  should  set  up  a 
beacon  to  warn  classical  philologists  against  overhasty 
interpolation-criticism,  since  it  shows  how  in  a  piece  of 
writing,  whose  composition  by  one  author  is  beyond 
question,  profound  diversities  of  style  and  inner  contra- 
dictions exist.  Scherer  proposes  to  explain  them  from 
differences  in  the  time  of  composition  and  subsequent 
combination.  And  now  the  oldest  manuscript  of  Faust 
has  been  published  by  Erich  Schmidt,  which  proves  that 
it  was  the  *  young  Goethe '  who  wrote  the  prologue  at 
one  effort  essentially  as  it  now  stands.  It  is  the  same 
*  young  Goethe'  who  speaks  both  in  the  ferment  of 
youth  and  in  a  disillusioned  old  age." 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  general  agreement  among 
critics  of  various  schools  in  regard  to  the  partition  is  such 
as  to  establish  in  the  main  the  correctness  of  their  con- 
clusions. Where  not  only  avowed  antisupernaturalists 
like  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  and  Stade,  but  Dillmann,  who 
openly  antagonizes  them,  and  believing  scholars  like 
Delitzsch  and  Driver  are  in  accord,  are  we  not  con- 
strained to  yield  assent  to  their  positions  ?  To  this  we 
reply : 

1.  That  this  is  not  a  question  to  be  decided  by  author- 
ity but  by  reason  and  argument. 

2.  The  consensus  of  divisive  critics  settles,  not  the 
truth  of  the  hypothesis,  but  what  they  consider  its  most 
plausible  and  defensible  form.  The  partition  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  a  definite  problem  with  certain  data,  to 
which  any  solution  that  is  offered  must  adapt  itsblf. 
Experiments  without  number  have  been  made  to  ascer- 
tain the  practicability  of  this  partition,  and  what  lines  of 
division  offer  the  best  chance  of  success.  The  ground 
has  been  surveyed  inch  by  inch  with  the  most  scrupulous 
care,   its   possibilities  ascertained,   and   diligent  search 


THE   UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  131 

made  for  the  best  methods  of  guarding  weak  points, 
protecting  against  assault,  overcoming  difficulties,  clos- 
ing up  gaps,  and  dealing  with  intractable  passages. 
And  the  present  agreement  of  critics,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
indicates  what  is  believed  to  be  the  most  practicable 
mode  of  carrying  out  the  hypothesis  that  has  yet  been 
devised. 

3.  The  agreement  of  the  critics  is  by  no  means  per- 
fect. While  at  many  points  there  is  a  general  consent, 
at  others  there  is  wide  divergence.  Dillmann  differs 
from  Wellhausen,  and  he  from  Kuenen,  and  Jiilicher 
from  them  all.  Many  are  content  to  follow  the  promi- 
nent leaders  more  or  less  implicitly,  but  critics  of  inde- 
pendence and  originality  continue  to  propose  new  expe- 
dients and  offer  fresh  conjectures.  Difficulties  gather  as 
the  work  proceeds.  In  large  portions  of  Genesis  there  is 
comparative  agreement ;  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch the  diversities  greatly  multiply ;  and  in  Joshua, 
the  crown  of  the  Hexateuch,  there  is  the  most  discordant 
medley. 

4.  A  large  number  of  eminent  scholars  accept  the 
critical  partition  of  the  Pentateuch  in  general,  if  not  in 
all  its  details.  It  has  its  fascinations,  which  sufficiently 
account  for  its  popularity.  The  learning,  ability,  and 
patient  toil  which  have  been  expended  upon  its  elabora- 
tion, the  specious  arguments  arrayed  in  its  support,  and 
the  skiU  with  which  it  has  been  adapted  to  the  j)henom- 
ena  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  Old  Testament  gener- 
ally, have  given  to  it  the  appearance  of  great  plausibility. 
The  novel  lines  of  inquiry  which  it  opens  make  it  attrac- 
tive to  those  of  a  speculative  turn  of  mind,  who  see  in 
it  the  opportunity  for  original  and  fruitful  research  in 
the  reproduction  of  ancient  documents,  long  buried  un- 
suspected in  the  existing  text,  which  they  antedate  by 
centuries.      The    boldness  and    seeming    success   with 


132     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

which  it  undertakes  to  revolutionize  traditional  opinion, 
and  give  a  new  aspect  to  the  origin  and  history  of  the 
religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  its  alliance  with  the 
doctrine  of  development,  which  has  found  such  wide 
application  in  other  fields  of  investigation,  have  largely 
contributed  to  its  popularity.  And  those  who  have  a 
bias  against  the  supernatural  or  the  divine  authority  of 
the  Pentateuch  see  in  this  hypothesis  a  ready  way  of 
disposing  of  its  Mosaic  origin  and  of  the  historic  truth 
of  whatever  they  are  indisposed  to  accept. 

The  various  forms  of  the  partition  hypothesis  and  the 
several  arguments  by  which  they  are  supported  have 
now  been  examined.  The  arguments  have  been  found 
inadequate  and  it  will  elsewhere  be  shown  in  detail  that 
the  hypothesis  cannot  be  fitted  to  the  phenomena  of  the 
Pentateuch.^  Its  failure  is  not  from  the  lack  of  ingenuity 
or  learning,  or  persevering  effort  on  the  part  of  its  advo- 
cates, nor  from  the  want  of  using  the  utmost  latitude  of 
conjecture,  but  simply  from  the  impossibility  of  accom- 
plishing the  end  proposed.  While,  however,  the  hy- 
pothesis has  proved  futile  as  an  attempt  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  labor  spent  upon  it 
has  not  been  entirely  thrown  away,  and  it  has  not  been 
without  positive  advantage  to  the  cause  of  truth.  (1)  It 
has  demonstrated  the  impossibility  of  such  a  partition. 
The  experiment  has  been  tried  in  every  way  that  the 
utmost  ingenuity  could  devise,  but  without  success.  (2) 
It  has  led  to  the  development  of  a  vast  mass  of  positive 
evidence  of  unity,  which  would  not  otherwise  have  been 
so    diligently    sought    for,  and    might  not  have  been 

» Its  incompatibility  with  the  book  of  Genesis  is  demonstrated  in  a 
companion  volume,  The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  The  reader 
is  likewise  referred  to  the  discussion  of  the  remaining  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  articles  by  the  author  in  the  Hebraica  for  1890  and  sub« 
sequently. 


THE   UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  ld3 

brought  to  light.  (3)  It  has  led  to  the  elucidation  and 
better  understanding  of  the  Pentateuch  from  the  neces- 
sity thus  imposed  of  minute  and  thorough  investigation 
of  the  meaning  and  bearings  of  every  word  and  sentence, 
and  of  the  mutual  relations  of  every  part.  It  verifies 
the  old  fable  of  a  field  which  was  dug  over  for  a  chimeri- 
cal purpose,  but  the  labor  thus  expended  was  rewarded 
by  an  unlooked-for  harvest,  sprung  from  seed  which  lay 
unsuspected  in  the  soil.^ 

'  Crisis  Hupfeldiana,  by  W.  Kay,  D.D.,  Oxford  and  London,  1865,  is 
a  trencliant  review  of  Hupfeld's  hypothesis  as  set  forth  in  Bishop 
Colenso's  Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  Part  V. 

The  Elements  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  by  Professor  A.  C.  Zenos,  New- 
York,  London,  and  Toronto,  1895,  is  a  very  clear  and  satisfactory  pres- 
entation of  the  nature  and  objects  of  the  higher  criticism,  together  with 
its  methods  and  its  history,  both  in  its  application  to  the  Old  and  to  the 
New  Testament. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  LAWS 

The  first  and  second  stages  of  opposition  to  the  Mo- 
saic authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  have  now  been  re- 
viewed. There  yet  remain  to  be  considered  the  third 
and  fourth  lines  of  objection,  which  are  based  upon  the 
triplicity  of  the  legal  codes  and  the  non-observance  of 
the  laws.  This  brings  us  to  the  third  and  last  stage  of 
opposition. 

The  next  phase  of  the  critical  movement,  Avhich  issued 
in  the  present  reigning  school  of  divisive  criticism, 
wrought  as  sudden  and  complete  a  revolution  in  the 
ideas  of  scholars  of  this  class  as  the  speculations  of  Dar- 
win effected  in  Natural  History,  when  the  denial  of  the 
unity  of  the  human  race  collapsed  on  the  instant,  and  it 
was  held  instead  that  all  animated  being  had  sprung  from 
common  germs.  And  the  lever  which  effected  the  over- 
throw was  in  both  cases  the  same,  that  is,  the  doctrine 
of  development.  This  at  once  exalted  the  speculations 
of  Ewald  and  Hupfeld  to  a  prominence  which  they  had 
not  previously  attained,  and  made  them  important  factors 
in  the  new  advance.  From  Ewald  was  borrowed  the 
idea  that  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  was  not 
accomplished  at  a  stroke  by  one  act,  whether  of  supple- 
menting or  of  combining  pre-existing  documents,  but 
took  place  in  successive  stages  by  a  series  of  enlarging 
combinations.  From  Hupfeld  were  derived  the  two  pil- 
lars of  his  scheme — the  continuity  of  the  Jehovist  docu- 
ment and  the  composite  character  of  the  Elohist — or,  in 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  LAWS  135 

other  words,  that  the  Jehovist  did  not  merely  make  addi- 
tions to  a  pre-existing  work,  but  wrote  an  independent 
work  of  his  own,  and  that  there  were  two  Elohists  instead 
of  one.  Thus  both  Ewald  and  Hupfeld,  without  intend- 
ing or  imagining  it,  smoothed  the  way  for  the  rise  of  a 
school  of  criticism  with  ideas  quite  diverse  from  their 
own. 

The  various  attempts  to  partition  the  Pentateuch  had 
thus   far  been   based   on   exclusively  literary   grounds. 
Diction,  style,  ideas,  the  connection  of  paragraphs  and 
sentences  supplied  the  staple  arguments  for  each  of  the 
forms  which  the  hypothesis  had  assumed,  and  furnished 
the   criteria   from   which   all    conclusions   were   drawn. 
Numerous  efforts  had  been  made  to  ascertain  the  dates 
to  which  the  writers  severally  belonged.     Careful  studies 
were  instituted  to  discover  the  bias  under  which  they 
respectively  wi'ote,  as  suggesting  the  influences  by  which 
they  might  be  supposed  to  be  surrounded,  and  hence 
their  historical  situation.     They  were  diligently  searched 
for  historical  allusions  that  might  afford  clews.     But  with 
all  the  pains  that  were  taken  no  sure  footing  could  be 
found,  and  the  critics  agreed  not  together.     Conjectures 
ranged  ad   libitum  through  the  ages  from  the  time  of 
Moses,  or  his  immediate  successor,  Joshua,  to  that   of 
Josiah,  eight  centuries  later.     And  while  the  internal  cri- 
teria were  so  vague,  there  was  no  external  support  on 
which  the   whole   hypothesis   could   rest,  no   objective 
proof  that  the  entire  fabric  was  not  a  sheer  figment  of 
the  imagination.      Amid   all  diversities,   however,   two 
points  were  universally  agreed  upon,  and  regarded  as 
settled  beyond  contradiction  :  (1)  The  Elohist  was  the 
groundwork  of  the  Pentateuch ;  it  supplied  the  scheme 
or  general  plan,  into  which  the  other  parts  were  fitted. 
And  as  it  was  the  oldest,  so  it  was  historically  the  most 
reliable  and   trustworthy  portion.      The   Jehovist   was 


136      THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

more  legendary,  depending,  as  it  was  believed  to  do, 
upon  later  and  less  credible  traditions.  (2)  Deuteronomy 
was  the  latest  and  the  crowning  portion  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, by  the  addition  of  which  the  whole  work  was  ren- 
dered complete. 

DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS. 

Here  the  DeveloiDment  Hypothesis  came  in  with  its 
revolutionary  conclusions.  It  supplied  the  felt  lack  of 
its  predecessors  by  fixing  definite  dates  and  offering  ob- 
jective proof  of  their  correctness.  The  conclusions  de- 
duced from  the  examination  of  the  Pentateuch  itseK  are 
verified  by  an  appeal  to  the  history.  Arguments  are 
drawn,  not  as  heretofore,  from  the  narratives  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch but  from  its  institutions  ;  not  from  its  historical 
portion  but  from  its  laAvs.  The  principle  of  development 
is  applied.  The  simplest  forms  of  legislation  are  to  be 
considered  the  most  primitive.  As  the  Israelites  devel- 
oped in  the  course  of  ages  from  rude  nomadic  tribes  to  a 
settled  and  well-organized  nation,  their  legislation  natu- 
rally grew  in  complexity  and  extent.  Now  the  Pentateuch 
obviously  contains  three  distinct  codes  or  bodies  of  law. 
One  is  in  Exodus  xx.-xxiii.  which  is  called  in  the  original 
text  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xxiv.  7).  This  Moses 
is  said  to  have  written  and  read  to  the  assembled  people 
at  Mount  Sinai  as  the  basis  of  the  covenant  relation  there 
formally  ratified  between  Jehovah  and  Israel.  Another 
is  the  Deuteronomic  Law,  which  Moses  is  said  to  have 
rehearsed  to  the  people  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  shortly 
before  his  death,  and  to  have  delivered  in  writing  to  the 
custody  of  the  priests,  to  be  laid  up  alongside  of  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  (Deut.  xxxi.  24-26).  A  third  is  the  Eitual 
law,  or  Priest  code,  contained  in  the  later  chapters  of 
Exodus,  the  book  of  Leviticus,  and  certain  chapters  of 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE  LAWS  137 

Numbers.  This  law  is  declared  in  the  general  and  in  all 
its  parts  to  have  been  communicated  by  God  to  Moses. 

The  advocates  of  this  hypothesis,  however,  take  issue 
with  these  explicit  statements,  and  affirm  that  these 
codes  could  not  have  had  the  origin  attributed  to  them. 
It  is  maintained  that  they  are  so  diverse  in  character  and 
so  inconsistent  in  their  provisions  that  they  cannot  have 
originated  at  any  one  time  or  have  proceeded  from  any 
one  legislator.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant,  from  its  sim- 
plicity and  brevity,  must  have  belonged  to  an  early  stage 
in  the  history  of  the  people.  From  this  there  is  a  great 
advance  in  the  Deuteronomic  code.  And  the  Eitual  law, 
or  Priest  code,  is  much  the  most  minute  and  complicated 
of  all,  and  hence  the  latest  in  the  series.  Long  periods 
must  have  elapsed,  and  great  changes  have  taken  place  in 
the  condition  of  the  people  to  have  wrought  such  changes 
in  their  institutions. 

The  Book  of  the  Covenant  makes  no  mention  of  a 
priesthood,  as  a  separate  order  of  men  alone  authorized 
to  perform  sacred  fimctions.  The  Deuteronomic  code 
speaks  of  priests,  who  are  constantly  designated  "  the 
priests,  the  Levites,"  from  which  it  is  inferred  that  the 
sacerdotal  prerogative  inhered  in  the  tribe  as  such,  and 
that  any  Levite  might  be  a  priest.  The  Priest  code  lim- 
its the  sacerdotal  office  to  the  family  of  Aaron  :  other 
Levites  were  simply  their  servants  and  attendants,  per- 
forming menial  functions  at  the  sanctuary,  but  not  al- 
lowed to  offer  sacrifice. 

In  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  sacrifices  are  not  regu- 
lated by  statute,  but  are  the  free,  spontaneous  gift  of  the 
offerer  unto  God,  in  grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  di- 
vine benefits.  In  Deuteronomy  certain  kinds  of  offerings 
are  specified,  but  with  no  fixed  requisition  of  number 
and  quality,  and  these  are  to  be  joyously  partaken  of  by 
the  offerer  and  his  family  and  friends  before  the  Lord. 


138      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

In  the  Levitical  code  additional  kinds  of  sacrifice  are  re- 
quired, not  mentioned  elsewhere,  and  everything  is  rigor- 
ously fixed  by  statute — what  particular  animal  is  to  be 
offered  in  each  species  of  sacrifice  or  on  any  given  occa- 
sion ;  its  sex  and  age,  and  sometimes  even  its  color ;  its 
accompaniments  and  the  precise  ceremonies  to  be  ob- 
served are  specified.  The  whole  has  become  a  matter  of 
ritual,  an  affair  of  the  priests,  who  absorb  as  their  per- 
quisites what  had  previously  fed  the  devotion  of  the 
offerer. 

All  this,  and  much  beside,  is  urged  as  indicating  the 
progressive  development  in  the  Israelitish  institutions 
as  represented  in  these  codes,  which  are  hence  regarded 
as  separated  by  long  intervals  of  time.  The  fallacy  lies 
in  putting  asunder  what  really  belongs  together.  All 
belong  to  one  comprehensive  and  harmonious  body  of 
law,  though  each  separate  portion  has  its  own  particular 
design,  by  which  its  form  and  contents  are  determined. 
That  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  so  brief  and  element- 
ary in  matters  of  worship  is  because  of  its  preliminary 
character.  It  was  intended  simply  to  be  the  basis  of 
God's  covenant  with  Israel,  not  to  develop  in  detail  the 
duties  growing  out  of  that  covenant  relation.  That  Deu- 
teronomy does  not  contain  the  minute  ceremonial  require- 
ments to  be  found  in  Leviticus  is  no  indication  that  the 
latter  is  the  subsequent  development  of  a  more  ritualistic 
age.  It  is  simply  because  there  was  no  need  of  repeat- 
ing details  which  had  already  been  sufficiently  enlarged 
upon  elsewhere.  The  Priest  cod-e  was  for  the  guidance 
of  the  priests,  in  conducting  the  ritual ;  Deuteronomy  for 
the  people  at  large,  to  whom  the  great  lawgiver  addressed 
his  earnest  warnings  and  exhortations  as  he  was  on  the 
point  of  being  taken  from  them.  The  differences  and 
discrepancies  alleged  in  these  laws  are  for  the  most  part 
capable  of  being  satisfactorily  harmonized.      If  a  few 


GENUIKENESS   OF  THE  LAWS  139 

puzzles  remain  insoluble  by  us,  tliej  are  not  more  than 
might  be  expected  in  matters  of  so  ancient  date,  so 
foreign  from  modern  ideas  and  usages  and  in  regard  to 
which  we  are  so  imperfectly  informed.  If  we  had  more 
knowledge  our  present  difficulties  would  doubtless  vanish, 
as  others  once  considered  formidable  have  long  since  dis- 
appeared. 

The  Book  of  the  Covenant,  primitive  as  it  is,  neverthe- 
less could  not  have  been  enacted  in  the  desert ;  for  it  has 
laws  respecting  fields  and  vineyards  and  olive-yards  and 
standing  grain  and  grain  in  shocks  (Ex.  xxii.  5,  6 ;  xxiii. 
11),  and  offerings  of  first-fruits  (xxii.  29,  xxiii.  19),  and  six 
years  of  tillage  with  a  sabbatical  year  whose  spontaneous 
products  should  be  for  the  poor  and  the  beasts  of  the 
field  (xxiii.  10,  11),  and  harvest  feasts  and  feasts  of  in- 
gathering (xxiii.).  All  these  have  no  application  to  a 
peoj)le  in  the  desert.  They  belong  to  a  settled  people, 
engaged  in  agriculture.  Such  a  law,  it  is  alleged,  could 
only  have  been  given  after  the  settlement  of  the  people 
in  Canaan. 

The  law  of  Deuteronomy,  while  greatly  expanded  be- 
yond the  Book  of  the  Covenant  in  its  provisions,  has  one 
marked  and  characteristic  feature  which  serves  to  define 
the  period  to  which  it  belongs.  The  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant (Ex.  XX.  24),  sanctions  altars  in  all  places  Avhere  God 
records  his  name.  Deuteronomy,  on  the  other  hand  (ch. 
xii.),  strictly  limits  the  offering  of  sacrifice  to  the  one 
place  which  Jehovah  should  choose.  Now,  it  is  said,  the 
period  of  the  judges  and  the  early  kings  is  marked  by  a 
multiplicity  of  altars  and  worship  in  high  places  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  But  in  the 
reign  of  king  Josiah,  more  than  eight  hundred  years 
after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  the  high  places  were 
abolished  and  sacrifice  was  restricted  to  the  altar  in  Jeru- 
salem.    And  this  was  done  in  obedience  to  the  require- 


140     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ments  of  a  book  of  the  law  tlien  found  in  the  temple  (2 
Kin.  xxii.  8).  That  book  was  Deuteronomy,  It  was  the 
soul  of  the  entire  movement.  And  this  is  the  period  to 
which  it  belongs. 

This  new  departure,  though  successful  so  long  as  the 
pious  Josiah  lived,  spent  its  force  when  he  was  taken 
away ;  and  under  his  ungodly  successors  the  people  re- 
lapsed again  into  the  worship  on  high  places,  the  popu- 
lar attachment  to  which  had  not  been  eradicated.  This 
was  effectually  broken,  however,  by  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity, which  severed  the  people  from  the  spots  which 
they  had  counted  sacred,  until  all  the  old  associations 
kad  faded  away.  The  returning  exiles,  impoverished  and 
fi3w  in  number,  were  bent  only  on  restoring  the  temple  in 
J  erusalem,  and  had  no  other  place  at  which  to  worship. 
It  was  then  and  under  these  circumstances  that  Ezra 
Came  forth  with  a  fresh  book  of  law,  adapted  to  the  new 
state  of  things,  and  engaged  the  people  to  obedience 
(Neh.  viii.).  This  book,  then  first  produced,  was  the 
Ritual  law  or  the  Priest  code.  It  also  limits  sacrifice  to 
one  place,  as  was  done  by  Deuteronomy ;  but  in  the  lat- 
ter this  was  regarded  as  a  new  departure,  which  it  would 
be  difficult  to  introduce,  and  which  is,  therefore,  reiter- 
ated and  insisted  upon  with  great  urgency  (Deut.  xii.). 
In  the  Priest  code,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  quietly  as- 
sumed as  a  matter  of  course,  as  though  nothing  else  was 
thought  of,  and  this  had  been  the  established  rule  from 
the  time  of  Moses. 

It  had  been  customary  for  critics  to  attribute  the  Priest 
code  to  the  Elohist,  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  to  the 
Jehovist ;  so  that  the  former  was  considered  the  first,  and 
the  latter  the  second  legislation.  Graf,  who  in  his  fa- 
mous essay  on  the  "  Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment," in  1866,  undertook  to  reverse  this  order  in  the  man- 
ner already  indicated,  felt  it  necessary  to  separate  the 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  LAWS  141 

historical  from  the  legal  portion  of  the  Elohist  document, 
and  to  maintain  that,  while  the  former  was  the  oldest 
portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  latter  was  the  latest.  It 
was  promptly  shown,  however,  in  opposition  to  Graf,  that 
such  a  separation  was  impossible.  The  connection  be- 
tween the  Elohist  histories  and  the  ritual  legislation  was 
too  intimate  to  be  severed.  Kuenen,  Professor  in  Ley- 
den,  then  boldly  grasped  the  situation,  accepted  the 
order  of  the  legislation  proposed  by  Graf,  and  intrep- 
idly contended,  against  the  unanimous  voice  of  all  ante- 
cedent critics,  that  the  entire  Elohist  document,  history 
and  legislation,  was  the  latest  constituent  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. This  reversal  of  all  former  beliefs  on  this  subject 
rendered  necessary  by  the  Development  Hypothesis,  met 
at  fii'st  with  determined  opposition.  It  w^as  not  until 
1878,  seventeen  years  ago,  that  Julius  Wellhausen  as- 
sumed its  advocacy  in  the  first  volume  of  his  "  History  of 
Israel."  His  skilful  presentation  won  for  it  a  sudden  pop- 
ularity, and  it  has  since  been  all  the  rage  in  Germany. 
Seventeen  years  of  supremacy  in  that  land  of  speculation 
is  scarcely  sufficient,  however,  to  guarantee  its  permanence 
even  there.  The  history  of  the  past  would  rather  lead 
one  to  expect  that  in  no  long  time  it  will  be  replaced  by 
some  fresh  novelty.^ 

*  For  further  details  in  respect  to  the  history  of  Pentateuch  Criticism 
see  the  Nachwort,  by  Merx,  to  the  second  edition  of  Tuch's  Commentar 
iiber  die  Genesis,  pp.  Ixxviii.-cxxii. 

Wellhausen's  tJbersicht  iiber  den  Fortgang  der  Pentateuchkritik  seit 
Bleek's  Tode  in  Bleek's  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  fourth  edi- 
tion, pp.  152-178. 

Kuenen's  Hexateuch  (English  Translation),  Outline  of  the  History  of 
the  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  during  the  last 
Quarter  of  a  Century,  pp   xi.-xl. 

The  following  additional  works  may  here  be  named,  which  are  writ- 
ten in  the  interest  of  the  Development  Hypothesis  : 

Kayser :  Das  vorexilische  Buch  der  Urgeschichte  Israels  und  seine 
Erweiterungen,  1874. 


142      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

This  reversal  of  the  order  of  the  Elohist  and  the  Jeho- 
vist  at  once  put  an  end  to  the  Supplement  Hypothesis. 

Wellhausen  •  Die  Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  in  the  Jalirbticher  fiir 
Deutsche  Theologie,  1876  and  1877  ;  also  reprinted  separately  in  his 
Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten,  vol.  ii. 

Keuss  :  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  des  Alten  Testaments,  1881. 

Cornill  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1891. 

Holzinger  ;  Einleitung  in  den  Hexateuch,  1893. 

Wildeboer  :  Die  Litteratur  des  Alten  Testaments,  1895. 

The  latest  form  of  the  partition  of  Genesis  adopted  by  this  school  of 
critics  is  very  conveniently  exhibited  to  the  eye  by  a  diversity  of  type 
in  Kantzsch  nnd  Socin,  Die  Genesis  mit  ausserer  Unterscheiduug  der 
Quellenschriften,  second  edition,  1891.  This  is  reproduced  for  English 
readers,  in  a  diversity  of  colors,  in  Dr.  E.  C.  Bissell's  Genesis  Printed  in 
Colors,  showing  the  original  sources  from  which  it  is  supposed  to  have 
been  compiled,  1892.  In  B.  W.  Bacon's  The  Genesis  of  Genesis,  1892, 
the  supposed  documents  are  first  indicated  by  a  diversity  of  type,  and 
then  each  is  in  addition  printed  sei:)arately. 

This  hypothesis  is  antagonized  by  Dillmann,  in  his  Commentaries  on 
the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  in  one  of  its  main  positions,  that  the  Priest 
code  was  posterior  to  Deuteronomy. 

It  was  still  more  decidedly  opposed  by — 

D.  Hoffmann  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Magazin  fiir  die  Wissen- 
schaft  des  Judenthums,  1876-1880. 

Franz  Delitzsch  in  articles  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift  fiir  Kirchliche 
Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  1880,  1882. 

Bredenkamp  :  Gesetz  und  Propheten,  1881. 

F.  E.  Konig :  Die  Hauptprobleme  der  israelitischen  Religions 
geschichte,  1884. 

E.  Konig  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1893. 
Also  on  still  more  thoroughly  evangelical  ground  by — 
A.  Zahn  :    Das  Deuteronomium,  1890. 

E.  Rupprecht  •  Das  Ratsel  des  Fiinfbuches  Mose  und  seine  falsche 
L'sung.  1894.     Des  Rjitsels  Losung,  1895. 

This  hypothesis  was  introduced  to  the  English  public  and  advocated 
by- 

W.  Robertson  Smith  in  several  articles  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britan- 
nica,  and  in  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  1881  ;  second 
edition,  1892. 

S.  R.  Driver :  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 1891. 

0.  A.  Briggs :  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  1893, 

Among  the  replies  made  to  it  in  Great  Britain  may  be  named—' 

R.  Watts :  The  Newer  Criticism  and  the  Analogy  of  the  Faith. 


GEl^UINENESS   OF  THE  LAWS  143 

For  the  Jehovist  could  not  have  made  additions  to  the 
Elohist  document  if  that  document  did  not  come  into 
existence  until  centuries  after  his  time.  It  thus  became 
necessary  to  assume  that  the  Jehovist  passages,  however 
isolated  and  fragmentary,  constituted  a  separate  docu- 
ment ;  and  the  continuity  was  made  out,  as  proposed  by 
Hupfeld,  by  using  scattered  clauses  torn  from  their  con- 
nection to  bridge  the  chasms.  The  second  Elohist  of 
Hupfeld  also  became  a  necessity,  though  now  supposed 
to  antedate  the  first.  The  passages  in  the  patriarchal 
history  alluded  to  by  Hosea  and  other  early  prophets 
must  be  eliminated  from  the  Elohist  document  before 
this  can  be  reckoned  postexilic.  The  great  bulk  of  the 
history  is  accordingly  made  over  to  the  second  Elohist, 
and  so  this  argument  of  early  date  is  evaded.  In  this 
manner  the  way  is  smoothed  for  turning  all  former  con- 
Deuteronomy  the  People's  Book,  its  Origin  and  Nature  (by  J.  Sime, 
Esq.,  published  anonymously),  1877. 

J.  Sime,  Esq.  :  The  Kingdom  of  All-Israel,  1883. 

A.  Cave  :  The  Inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament,  1888. 

Bishop  Ellicott :  Christus  Comprobator,  1891. 

J.  Robertson  :  The  Early  Religion  of  Israel  (Baird  Lecture  for  1889). 

Lex  Mosaica,  or  the  Law  of  Moses  and  the  Higher  Criticism  (Essays 
by  various  writers),  edited  by  R.  V.  French,  1894 

The  following  may  be  mentioned  among  those  that  have  appeared  in 
America  : 

E.  C.  Bissell :  The  Pentateuch,  its  Origin  and  Structure,  1885. 
G.  Vos  :  The  Mosaic  Origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes,  1886. 
C.  M.  Mead :  Christ  and  Criticism,  1893. 

Essays  on  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  by  various  writers,  edited  by  T.  W. 
Chambers.  1888. 

Anti-Higher  Criticism  (articles  by  various  writers),  edited  by  L.  W. 
Munhall,  1894. 

T.  E.  Schmauk :  The  Negative  Criticism  and  the  Old  Testament,  1894. 

F.  R.  Beattie :  Radical  Criticism,  1895. 

W.  H.  Green  -,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  1888.  The  Hebrew  Feasts 
in  their  Relation  to  Recent  Critical  Hypotheses,  1885. 

The  following  able  work  in  defence  of  the  authorship  of  Moses  and  in 
opposition  to  the  development  hypothesis  has  recently  appeared  in  Hol- 
land :  Hoedemaker,  De  Mozaische  Oorsprong  van  de  Wetten  in  Exodus, 
Leviticus  en  Numeri,  1895.  , 


144     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

ceptions  of  tlie  critics  regarding  the  formation  of  the 
Pentateuch  upside  down.  The  Elohim  document,  from 
being  the  oldest  and  most  reliable,  becomes  the  latest 
and  the  least  trustworthy.  It  is  even  charged  that  its 
facts  are  manufactured  for  a  purpose ;  that  the  author 
makes  statements  not  because  he  has  evidence  of  their 
truth,  but  because  they  correspond  with  his  ideas  of 
what  ought  to  have  occurred,  and  what  he  therefore 
imagines  must  have  occurred.  Instead  of  representing 
the  Mosaic  age  as  it  really  was  he  gives,  as  Dr.  Driver 
expresses  it  ("  Literature  of  the  O.  T.,"  p.  120),  "  an  ideal 
picture  "  of  it. 

SCRIPTUKAL  STATEMENTS. 

It  has  already  been  remarked,  as  is  indeed  obvioivs 
upon  its  face,  that  the  Development  Hypothesis  flatly 
contradicts  throughout  the  account  which  the  Pentateuch 
gives  of  itself.  The  laws  are  all  explicitly  declared  to 
have  been  Mosaic,  to  have  been  written  down  by  Moses, 
or  to  have  been  communicated  to  him  directly  from  the 
Lord.  And  there  is  no  good  reason  for  discrediting  the 
biblical  statements  on  this  subject.  The  three  codes  bei- 
long  precisely  where  the  ScrijDture  narrative  places  them, 
and  they  are  entirely  appropriate  in  that  position.  The 
elementary  character  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  ex- 
plained not  by  its  superior  antiquity,  but  by  its  prelimi- 
nary purpose.  It  was  a  brief  body  of  regulations  intended 
to  serve  as  a  basis  for  the  formal  ratification  of  the  cove- 
nant between  Jehovah  and  the  people  of  Israel.  Accord- 
ingly all  that  was  required  was  a  few  simple  and  com- 
prehensive rules,  framed  in  the  spirit  of  the  religion  of 
Jehovah,  for  the  government  of  the  people  in  their  rela- 
tions to  one  another  and  in  their  relation  to  God,  to 
which  in  a  solemn  act  of  worship  they  were  to  pledge 
assent.    After  this  fundamental  act  had  been  duly  per- 


GENUITTENESS   OF  THE  LAWS  145 

formed,  and  the  covenant  relation  had  thus  been  insti- 
tuted and  acknowledged  by  both  the  contracting  parties 
the  way  was  open  for  a  fuller  development  of  the  duties 
and  obligations  involved  in  this  relation.  Jehovah  as 
the  covenant  God  of  Israel  would  henceforth  take  up  his 
abode  in  the  midst  of  his  people.  This  made  it  neces- 
sary that  detailed  instructions  should  be  given,  for  which 
there  was  no  occasion  before,  respecting  the  construction 
of  the  sacred  Tabernacle,  the  services  to  be  performed  in 
it,  the  officiating  priesthood,  the  set  times  for  special 
solemnities,  and  in  general  the  entire  ritual  to  be  ob- 
served by  a  holy  people  for  the  expression  and  perpetu- 
ation of  their  communion  with  a  holy  God.  All  this  was 
embodied  in  the  Priest  code,  in  which  the  scanty  general 
provisions  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  regarding  divine 
worship  were  replaced  by  a  vastly  expanded  and  minutely 
specified  ceremonial.  This  was  not  a  development  imply- 
ing the  lapse  of  ages  with  an  altered  civiUzation  and  a  cor- 
responding advance  in  the  popular  notions  of  the  Divine 
Being,  and  of  the  homage  that  should  be  paid  to  him. 

At  the  close  of  the  forty  years'  wandering,  when  the 
great  legislator  was  about  to  die,  he  recapitulated  in  the 
audience  of  the  people  the  laws  already  given  in  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  with  such  modifications  and  additions  as 
were  suggested  by  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were 
placed,  the  experience  of  the  past,  and  the  prospects  of 
the  immediate  future.  The  Deuteronomic  code  thus  en- 
acted was  a  development,  not  as  the  Priest  code  had 
been,  on  the  side  of  the  ritual,  but  considered  as  a  code 
for  popular  guidance  in  civil  and  religious  matters.  The 
enlargement,  which  we  here  find,  of  the  simple  regula- 
tions of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  implies  no  longer  in- 
terval and  no  greater  change  in  the  condition  or  consti- 
tution of  the  people  than  is  provided  for  in  the  Scripture 

narrative.     And  at  the  same  time  the  fact  that  we  do  not 
10 


146      THE  HIGHER  CRITIOISM  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

find  in  Deuteronomy  a  ritual  so  elaborate  and  minutely 
detailed  as  in  Leviticus,  is  not  because  Leviticus  is  the 
further  development  of  a  still  later  period,  when  cere- 
monies were  more  multiplied  and  held  in  higher  esteem, 
but  simply  because  Leviticus  was  a  professional  book, 
and  Deuteronomy  was  a  popular  book.  Leviticus  was 
for  the  guidance  of  the  priests  who  were  professionally 
charged  with  the  oversight  and  direction  of  the  cere- 
monial, and  Deuteronomy  for  the  guidance  of  the  people 
in  matters  more  immediately  within  their  province. 
Medical  works  for  the  instruction  of  physicians  must 
necessarily  be  more  minute  than  sanitary  rules  for  popu- 
lar use.  And  if  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  the  same 
eminent  physician  could  not  produce  both  a  professional 
and  a  popular  treatise  on  medicine,  it  is  equally  so  to  in- 
sist, as  the  critics  do,  that  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus 
cannot  both  be  from  the  same  age  and  the  same  legislator. 
It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  agricultural  allu- 
sions in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  are  not  in  conflict  with 
its  Mosaic  origin,  and  its  delivery  at  Sinai.  The  people 
were  on  their  way  to  Canaan.  This  land  had  been  prom- 
ised to  their  fathers,  and  the  Lord  had  renewedly  prom- 
ised to  give  it  to  them.  It  was  with  this  expectation 
that  they  left  Egypt.  For  this  they  were  marching 
through  the  desert.  Canaan  was  their  anticipated  home, 
the  goal  of  their  hopes.  They  confidently  trusted  that 
they  would  soon  be  settled  there  in  full  possession. 
That  there  was  to  be  even  so  much  as  a  delay  of  forty 
years,  and  that  the  entire  adult  generation  was  to  pass 
away  before  this  hope  was  fulfilled,  never  entered  the 
mind  of  the  leader  or  the  people ;  since  neither  could 
have  imagined  such  an  act  of  gross  rebellion  as  that  for 
which  they  were  sentenced  to  perish  in  the  wilderness. 
It  would  have  been  strange,  indeed,  if  the  law  given  under 
these  circumstances  did  not  look  beyond  the  desert  as 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   LAWS  147 

tlieir  abode,  and  took  no  note  of  what  was  in  immediate 
prospect.  It  was  quite  appropriate  for  it  to  contemplate 
their  expected  life  in  Canaan,  and  to  give  regulations 
respecting  the  fields  and  vineyards  and  olive  yards, 
which  they  were  shortly  to  possess. 

NO  DISCREPANCY. 

And  there  is  no  such  difference  as  is  pretended  be- 
tween the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  the  other  Mosaic 
codes  in  respect  to  the  place  of  legitimate  sacrifice.  It 
is  not  true  that  the  former  sanctioned  a  multiplicity  of 
altars,  and  that  this  was  the  recognized  practice  of  pious 
worshippers  of  Jehovah  until  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and 
that  he  instituted  a  new  departure  from  all  previous  law 
and  custom  by  restricting  sacrifice  to  one  central  altar  in 
compliance  with  a  book  of  the  law  then  for  the  first  time 
promulgated.  The  unity  of  the  altar  was  the  law  of 
Israel's  life  from  the  beginning.  Even  in  the  days  of 
the  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  no  such  thing 
was  known  as  separate  rival  sanctuaries  for  the  worship 
of  Jehovah,  coexisting  in  various  parts  of  the  land.  They 
built  altars  and  offered  sacrifice  in  whatever  part  of  the 
land  they  might  be,  particularly  in  places  where  Jehovah 
appeared  to  them.  But  the  patriarchal  family  was  a 
unit,  and  while  they  worshipped  in  different  places  suc- 
cessively in  the  course  of  their  migi-ations,  they  never- 
theless worshipped  in  but  one  place  at  a  time.  They 
did  not  offer  sacrifice  contemporaneously  on  different  al- 
tars. So  with  Israel  in  their  marches  through  the  wilder- 
ness. They  set  up  their  altar  wherever  they  encamped, 
at  various  places  successively,  but  not  in  more  than  one 
place  at  the  same  time.  This  is  the  state  of  things  which 
is  recognized  and  made  legitimate  in  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant.     In  Exodus  xx.  24,  the  Israelites  are  author- 


148      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ized  to  erect  an  altar,  not  wherever  they  may  please, 
but  "  in  all  places  where  God  records  his  name."  The 
critics  interpret  this  as  a  direct  sanction  given  to  various 
sanctuaries  in  different  parts  of  Palestine.  There  is  no 
foundation  whatever  for  such  an  interpretation.  There 
is  not  a  word  here  nor  anywhere  in  Scripture,  from  which 
the  legitimacy  of  the  multitudinous  sanctuaries  of  a  later 
time  can  be  inferred.  An  altar  is  lawful,  and  sacrifice 
upon  it  acceptable,  and  God  will  there  meet  with  his 
people  and  bless  them  only  where  he  records  his  name ; 
not  where  men  may  utter  his  name,  whether  by  invoca- 
tion or  proclamation,  but  where  God  reveals  or  manifests 
himself.  He  manifested  himself  gloriously  on  Sinai  amid 
awful  indications  of  his  presence.  This  was  Moses's 
warrant  for  building  an  altar  there  (Ex.  xxiv.  4).  AVhen 
the  tabernacle  was  erected,  and  the  ark  deposited  in  it  as 
the  abiding  symbol  of  the  divine  presence,  that  became 
the  spot  where  God  recorded  his  name,  and  to  which  all 
sacrifices  were  to  be  brought  (Lev.  xvii.  5).  So  that 
wherever  the  tabernacle  or  the  ark  was  stationed,  an  altar 
might  properly  be  erected  and  sacrifices  offered. 

And  Deuteronomy  xii.  looks  forward  to  the  time  when 
Israel  should  be  permanently  settled  in  the  land  which 
Jehovah  their  God  was  giving  them  to  inherit,  and  he 
should  have  given  them  rest  from  all  their  enemies  round 
about  so  that  they  should  dwell  in  safety  ;  then  he  would 
choose  a  place  out  of  all  their  tribes  to  put  his  name 
there,  and  that  should  thenceforth  be  his  habitation  and 
the  sole  place  of  legitimate  sacrifice.  These  conditions 
were  not  fulfilled  until  the  peaceful  reign  of  Solomon, 
who  by  divine  direction  built  the  temple  as  Jehovah's 
permanent  abode.  Here  the  Most  High  placed  his  name 
by  filling  it  with  his  effulgent  glory  at  its  dedication,  and 
thenceforward  this  was  the  one  place  whither  the  people 
went  up  to  meet  with  God  and  worship  him  by  sacrifice," 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   LAWS  149 

thither  they  directed  their  prayers,  and  from  his  holy  hill 
of  Zion  God  sent  forth  his  help  and  his  salvation. 

There  is  thus  the  most  entire  concord  between  the  sev- 
eral codes  in  regard  to  the  place  of  sacrifice.  It  was  from 
the  beginning  limited  to  the  place  of  divine  manifestation. 
As  this  manifestation  was  on  all  ordinary  occasions  re- 
stricted first  to  the  Mosaic  tabernacle,  and  then  to  the 
temple  of  Solomon,  the  language  of  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  no  less  than  that  of  the  Levitical  and  Deuter- 
onomic  codes  demanded  that  sacrifice  should  ordinarily 
be  restricted  to  these  sacred  edifices.  Only  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant,  which  lays  down  the  primal  and  universal 
law  of  the  Hebrew  altar,  is  wider  in  its  scope,  inasmuch 
as  it  embraces  those  extraordinary  occasions  likewise  for 
which  there  was  no  need  to  make  express  provision  in 
the  other  codes.  If  God  manifested  himself  by  an  imme- 
diate and  supernatural  appearance  elsewhere  than  at  the 
sanctuary,  that  spot  became,  not  permanently  indeed, 
but  so  long  as  the  manifestation  lasted,  holy  ground,  and 
a  place  of  legitimate  sacrifice.  And  on  the  other  hand, 
if  the  Most  High  at  any  time  withdrew  his  ordinary  pres- 
ence from  the  sanctuary,  as  when  the  ark  was  captured 
by  the  Philistines,  the  sanctuary  ceased  to  be  the  place 
where  God  recorded  his  name,  the  restriction  of  sacrifice 
to  that  spot  was,  ipso  facto,  for  the  time  abohshed ;  and 
in  the  absence  of  any  definite  provision  for  the  regular  seat 
of  God's  worship,  the  people  were  left  to  offer  sacrifice  as 
best  they  might.  To  the  extent  of  these  two  exceptional 
cases  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  more  comprehensive 
than  the  other  codes.  But  it  lends  no  sanction  what- 
ever to  that  irregular  and  unregulated  worship  which 
the  critics  would  make  it  cover. 

After  the  capture  of  the  ark,  and  during  the  period  of 
its  seclusion  in  a  private  house  which  followed,  the  wor- 
ship on  high  places  had  a  certain  sort  of  legitimacy  from 


150      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  exigencies  of  tlie  situation,  as  is  expressly  stated  (1 
Kin.  iii.  2) ;  as  it  had  also  at  a  later  period  in  the  apostate 
kingdom  of  Israel,  where  the  pious  among  the  people 
were  restrained  from  going  to  the  house  of  God  in  Jeru- 
salem. But  apart  from  these  exceptional  cases  worship 
at  other  altars  than  that  at  the  sanctuary  was  in  violation 
of  the  express  statute. 

ALLEGED  YIOLATIONS   OF  THE  LAW. 

The  critics  argue  the  non-existence  of  the  law  from  its 
repeated  violation.  It  is  claimed  that  the  history  shows 
that  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  were  not  in  fact  obeyed  : 
whence  it  is  inferred  that  no  such  laws  were  then  known. 
It  is  admitted,  of  course,  that  there  were  numerous  de- 
partures from  God  and  repeated  open  violations  or  con- 
tinued neglect  of  his  laws.  The  history  records  such  in- 
stances again  and  again,  but  it  brands  them  in  every 
case  as  wilful  transgressions  against  God  and  his  known 
law.  It  does  not  follow  from  the  perpetration  of  murder 
and  theft  that  such  acts  were  not  regarded  as  criminal, 
nor  that  the  sixth  and  eighth  commandments  were  un- 
known. When  it  is  over  and  over  charged  that  the 
people  forsook  the  Lord  and  worshipped  Baal  and  Ash- 
tar  oth,  this  can  be  explained  in  no  other  way  than  as 
an  apostasy  from  Jehovah  to  these  foreign  deities.  For 
if  there  is  anything  that  is  obvious,  it  is  that  Jehovah 
was  Israel's  God  from  the  beginning.  Such  open  de- 
clensions from  the  true  God  have  no  bearing,  therefore, 
on  the  present  subject.  They  were  plain  offences  against 
known  and  acknowledged  obligation. 

But  it  is  affirmed  that  good  men  at  different  periods 
acted  habitually  at  variance  with  the  requirement  of  the 
ritual  laws  without  incurring  censure  and  apparently 
without  being  sensible  that  they  were  doing  wrong  or 
transgressing  any  commandment. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   LAWS  151 

Thus,  while  the  law  required  that  sacrifices  should  be 
offered  only  at  the  sanctuary  and  only  by  priests,  the 
sons  of  Aaron,  repeated  mention  is  made  of  sacrifices 
being  offered  to  the  Lord,  and,  so  far  as  appears,  with  ac- 
ceptance, though  it  was  elsewhere  than  at  the  sanctuary, 
and  the  offerer  was  not  a  descendant  of  Aaron.  Thus 
the  children  of  Israel  offered  sacrifice  at  Bochim  (Judg. 
ii.  5),  in  a  penitential  spirit  when  rebuked  for  their  neg- 
lects of  duty  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord.  Gideon  built 
two  altars  in  Ophrah  and  offered  a  bullock  upon  one  of 
them  to  the  Lord  (Judg.  vi.  24-27).  Manoah  offered  a 
kid  in  sacrifice  upon  a  rock  to  the  Lord  (Judg.  xiii.  19). 
This  it  is  said,  is  in  direct  violation  of  the  law  of  Deuter- 
onomy xii.  6,  13,  14,  Numbers  xviii.  7,  though  it  accords 
with  the  prescriptions  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  which 
recognizes  no  separate  order  of  priests,  and  permits  sacri- 
fices (Ex.  XX.  24),  in  all  places  where  the  Lord  records  his 
name.  It  is  hence  inferred  that  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy 
and  the  Priest  code  were  not  in  existence,  but  only  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant. 

It  has  already  been  shown,  however,  that  there  is  no 
variance  between  these  laws  in  respect  to  the  place  of 
sacrifice ;  and  the  Aaronic  priesthood  was  not  yet  insti- 
tuted when  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  was  framed.  The 
sacrifices  at  Bochim,  and  those  that  were  offered  by 
Gideon  and  Manoah  are  readily  accounted  for  by  the  ex- 
traordinary circumstances  that  called  them  forth.  On  all 
ordinary  occasions  the  sanctuary  was  the  place  for  sacri- 
ficial worship  and  this  was  to  be  offered  only  by  the 
priests,  who  were  specially  charged  with  this  service. 
But  when  God  manifested  himself  in  an  extraordinai-y 
manner  in  any  place  remote  from  the  tabernacle,  that 
place  became  for  the  time  a  sanctuary,  and  the  person 
to  whom  he  thus  manifested  liimself  became  for  the  time 
a  priest.     The  special  prerogative  of  the  priest  is  that  he 


152      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

is  authorized  to  "come  near"  unto  God,  Num.  iii.  10, 
xvi.  5, 40,  Ezek.  xliv.  15, 16  ;  lie,  to  whom  God  visibly  ap- 
pears and  thus  brings  him  near  to  himself,  is  accordingly 
invested  temporarily  with  a  sacerdotal  character.  God 
must  be  worshipped  wherever  he  appeared,  and  by 
whomsoever  he  honored  by  such  special  manifestation. 
Accordingly,  whenever  throughout  the  book  of  Judges 
the  LoKD  or  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  men, 
they  offered  sacrifice  on  the  spot ;  and  no  sacrifices  were 
offered  elsewhere  than  at  the  sanctuary  or  by  any  other 
than  a  priest,  except  upon  the  occasion  of  such  a  special 
manifestation  of  the  divine  presence. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  sacrifices  might  be 
offered  anywhere  in  the  presence  of  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant. The  ark  was  the  symbol  of  the  Lord's  presence. 
It  was  the  ark  in  the  tabernacle  which  made  the  latter  a 
holy  place.  And  when  the  ark  was  taken  from  the  tab- 
ernacle, it  was  still  the  throne  of  God,  who  dwelt  between 
the  cherubim.  "Wherever  the  ark  was,  there  was  the  sym- 
bol of  God's  presence ;  and  hence  when  the  ark  was 
present  at  Bethel  (Judg.  xx.  26,  27),  or  when  it  came 
back  from  the  Philistines  to  Beth-shemesh  (1  Sam.  vi. 
14),  sacrifices  were  offered  to  the  Lord.  And  so  when 
David  was  transporting  the  ark  to  Zion,  oxen  and  fatlings 
were  sacrificed  before  it  (2  Sam.  vi.  13). 

But  we  find  the  prophet  Samuel  offering  sacrifice  (1 
Sam.  vii.  9,  17)  away  from  the  ark  and  the  tabernacle, 
and  without  any  special  divine  manifestation  having  been 
made.  This  was  again  because  of  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  In  consequence  of  the  sins  of  Eli's 
sons,  and  in  general  the  wickedness  of  both  priests  and 
people,  God  suffered  the  sacred  ark  to  be  taken  captive 
by  the  Philistines.  The  removal  of  the  symbol  of  his 
presence  was  significant  of  God's  forsaking  Shiloh  and 
forsaking  his  people  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  59-61,  67,  68 ;  Jer.  vii. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  LAWS  153 

12;  xxvi.  6,  9).  The  Philistines  were  compelled  by  the 
heavy  plagues  sent  upon  them  to  return  the  ark.  But 
the  ark  was  not  taken  back  to  Shiloh,  which  the  Lord 
had  so  signally  rejected  as  his  abode.  It  was  hid  away 
in  the  seclusion  of  a  private  house  until  the  favor  of 
the  Lord  should  again  return  to  his  people.  God  had 
abandoned  the  sanctuary,  and  there  was  thenceforth  no 
legitimate  sanctuary  in  Israel  until  the  ark  was  taken  to 
Ziou  and  the  Lord  chose  that  for  his  abode.  During 
this  period,  when  Israel  was  without  a  divinely  sanctioned 
sanctuary,  Samuel,  as  God's  prophet  and  representative, 
by  divine  authority,  assumed  the  functions  of  the  de- 
generate priesthood,  and  sacrifices  were  oJBfered  on  high 
places.  This  state  of  things  continued,  as  we  are  told 
(1  Kin.  iii.  2),  until  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  built, 
when  that  became  God's  dwelling-place ;  and  as  that  was 
the  spot  which  God  had  chosen  to  place  his  name  there, 
(1  Kin.  viii.  29),  it  henceforth  was  the  only  lawful  place  of 
sacrifice.  We  do  indeed  read  after  that  of  offerings  made 
on  high  places,  but  they  were  illegal  and  were  regarded 
as  such,  and  pious  princes  endeavored  to  suppress  them, 
with  varying  success,  until  at  last  Hezekiah,  and  more 
effectually  still,  Josiah,  succeeded  in  abolishing  them. 

It  is  confessed,  accordingly,  that  sacrifices  were  in 
repeated  instances  offered  elsewhere  than  at  the  sanctu- 
ary; but  whether  these  were  justified  by  extraordinary 
circumstances,  or  whether  they  were  irregular  and  con- 
demned as  such,  they  cannot  disprove  the  existence  of 
the  law  restricting  sacrifice  to  one  common  altar  in  all 
ordinary  cases. 

IGNORANCE  OF  THE  LAW. 

Still  fui'ther,  some  infractions  of  the  law  may  be  attrib- 
utable to  ignorance  of  its  requirements.  Moses  directed 
that  the  law  should  be  publicly  read  every  seventh  year, 


154     THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

Deut.  xxxi.  10-13.  Teaching  the  people  its  statutes  was 
at  all  times  the  special  duty  of  the  priests,  Lev.  x.  11, 
Deut.  xxiv.  8,  Mai.  ii.  7,  and  of  the  Levites,  Deut.  xxxiii. 
10.  But  in  periods  of  declension  it  may  easily  be  sup- 
posed this  duty  was  neglected,  and  that  priests  and  Le- 
vites themselves  may  have  been  as  ignorant  of  the  law  as 
monks  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  of  the  Bible,  1  Sam.  ii. 
12,  13  (marg.  Rev.  Yer.),  Hos.  iv.  6.  Precepts  of  the  law 
long  disregarded  Avould  fade  from  the  memory  of  the  peo- 
ple. Mingling  with  idolaters  they  adopted  their  customs 
and  were  infected  with  their  ideas  to  such  an  extent  that 
Jephthah  could  even  sacrifice  his  daughter  to  Jehovah  in 
fulfilment  of  his  vow,  Judg.  xi.  35. 

My  friend.  Professor  Zenos,  of  McCormick  Theologi- 
cal Seminary,  has  directed  my  attention  to  the  following 
signal  instance  in  modern  times  of  the  total  oblivion  of  a 
noted  code  of  laws  previously  in  force.  It  is  thus  de- 
scribed by  Sir  J.  Stephen  in  his  "  Lectures  on  the  History 
of  France,"  Lecture  IV.,  p.  94 :  "When  the  barbarism  of 
the  domestic  government  (under  the  Carlovingian  dynasty) 
had  thus  succeeded  the  barbarism  of  the  government  of 
the  state,  one  of  the  most  remarkable  results  of  that  po- 
litical change  was  the  disappearance  of  the  laws  and  insti- 
tutions by  which  Charlemagne  had  endeavored  to  elevate 
and  civilize  his  subjects.  Before  the  close  of  the  century 
in  which  he  died  the  whole  body  of  his  laws  had  fallen 
into  utter  disuse  throughout  the  whole  extent  of  his 
Gallic  dominions.  They  who  have  studied  the  charters, 
laws,  and  chronicles  of  the  later  Carlovingian  princes 
most  diligently  are  unanimous  in  declaring  that  they 
indicate  either  an  absolute  ignorance  or  an  entire  forget- 
fulness  of  the  legislation  of  Charlemagne."  Will  the 
critics  apply  the  same  rule  to  Charlemagne  that  they  do 
to  Moses,  and  infer  that  he  never  gave  the  laws  attributed 
to  him  ? 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  LAWS  155 

It  lias  been  maintained  on  such  grounds  as  liave  now 
been  recited,  that  the  law  of  Deuteronomy  was  unknown 
until  the  time  of  king  Josiah  ;  that  the  worship  on  high 
places  continued  until  his  reign — that  the  prophetic  and 
priestly  party  then  became  convinced  in  consequence  of 
the  idolatrous  taint  which  infected  the  worship  on  high 
places,  and  the  abuses  and  excesses  prevalent  there  that 
the  purity  of  religion  demanded  that  they  should  be 
abolished  and  sacrifice  restricted  to  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem. Accordingly  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  which 
strenuously  insists  upon  the  overthrow  of  the  high  places 
and  the  confining  of  sacrifice  to  the  place  which  the  Lord 
should  choose,  was  prepared  with  the  view  of  legalizing 
this  measure  and  paving  the  way  for  its  enforcement. 
This  was  attributed  to  Moses  in  order  to  give  it  a  higher 
sanction.  A  copy  was  deposited  in  the  temple,  where  it 
was  found,  as  it  was  intended  that  it  should  be,  by  Hil- 
kiah,  the  high-priest,  and  taken  to  the  king,  who  carried 
the  projected  reform  into  effect  (2  Kin.  xxii.  8  ff.).  Others, 
who  are  more  reverential,  seek  to  explain  the  discovery 
of  the  book  and  its  enforcement  as  the  work  of  Moses 
without  involving  fraud,  but  with  very  indifi'erent  success. 

The  Priest  code,  it  is  alleged,  is  later  still.  That  was 
the  work  of  Ezra,  and  was  prepared  with  reference  to  the 
needs  of  the  period  after  the  exile,  and  the  ritualistic 
spirit  which  then  prevailed.  This  is  the  book  of  the  law 
produced  by  Ezra  the  scribe  and  read  to  the  people,  as 
recorded  in  Nehemiah  viii.,  to  which  they  solemnly  en- 
gaged to  render  obedience.  This  code,  however,  it  is  con- 
tended, was  not  complete  even  in  the  days  of  Ezra.  Ad- 
ditions were  subsequently  made  to  it,  and  continued  to  be 
made  for  some  time  thereafter.  The  day  of  atonement  is 
not  mentioned  in  either  Ezra  or  Nehemiah,  and  its  pecul- 
iar services  were  introduced  at  a  later  date.  The  altar 
of  incense,  with  the  special  sacredness  attached  to  the 


156     THE  HIGHER  CEITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

offering  of  incense,  indicates,  it  is  said,  one  of  the  later 
strata  of  the  Priest  code.  And  from  some  peculiarities  in 
the  Greek  and  Samaritan  text  of  the  description  of  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle,  it  is  confidently  affirmed  that  changes 
and  alterations  in  the  Hebrew  text  continued  to  be  made 
until  after  the  time  when  those  versions  were  prepared. 

This  whole  theory  of  the  successive  origin  and  gradual 
growth  of  the  different  codes  of  the  Pentateuchal  law  is 
not  only  directly  in  the  face  of  the  explicit  statements  of 
the  Pentateuch  itself,  but  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
history  on  which  it  is  professedly  based.     Both  the  book 
found  in  the  temple  in  the   reign  of  Josiah  and  that 
brought  forward  and  read  by  Ezra  after  the  exile,  are 
expressly  declared  to  have  been  not  recent  productions 
but  the  law  of  Moses.     The  assumption  that  laws  were 
fraudulently  attributed  to  the  great  legislator  is  gratui- 
tous and  without  foundation.    The  idea  that  such  a  fraud 
could  be  successfully  perpetrated  is  preposterous.     It  is 
utterly  out  of  the  question  that  a  body  of  laws  never 
before  heard  of  could  be  imposed  upon  the  people  as 
though  they  had  been  given  by  Moses  centuries  before, 
and  that  they  could  have  been  accepted  and  obeyed  by 
them,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  imposed  new 
and  serious  burdens,  set  aside  established  usages  to  which 
the  people  were  devotedly  attached,  and  conflicted  with 
the  interests  of  numerous  and  powerful  classes  of  the  peo- 
ple.   And  it  further  involves  the  incongruity  of  assuming 
that  three  codes,  which  were  at  variance  in  their  pro- 
visions, the  first  having  been  superseded  by  the  second, 
and  the  second  in  turn  sujoerseded  by  the  third,  came 
subsequently  to  be  regarded  as  entirely  harmonious,  and 
as  one  body  of  law  which  had  been  united  from  the  be- 
ginning and  was  all  alike  obligatory. 


YE 


THE  BEAEING  OF  THE  DIVISIVE  CRITICISM  ON  THE 
CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  ON  SU- 
PERNATURAL RELIGION 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  partition  hypotheses  in  all 
their  forms  have  been  elaborated  from  the  beginning  in 
the  interest  of  unbehef.  The  unfriendly  animus  of  an 
opponent  does  not  indeed  absolve  us  from  patiently  and 
candidly  examining  his  arguments,  and  accepting  what- 
ever facts  he  may  adduce,  though  we  are  not  bound  to 
receive  his  perverted  interpretation  of  them.  Neverthe- 
less we  cannot  intelligently  nor  safely  overlook  the  palpa- 
ble bias  against  the  supernatural  which  has  infected  the 
critical  theories  which  we  have  been  reviewing,  from  first 
to  last.  All  the  acknowledged  leaders  of  the  movement 
have,  without  exception,  scouted  the  reality  of  miracles 
and  prophecy  and  immediate  divine  revelation  in  their 
genuine  and  evangelical  sense.  Their  theories  are  all 
inwrought  with  naturalistic  presuppositions,  which  can- 
not be  disentangled  from  them  without  their  falling  to 
pieces.  Evangelical  scholars  in  Germany,  as  elsewhere, 
steadfastly  opposed  these  theories,  refuted  the  arguments 
adduced  in  their  support,  and  exposed  their  malign  ten- 
dencies. It  is  only  recently  that  there  has  been  an  at- 
tempt at  compromise  on  the  part  of  certain  believing 
scholars,  who  are  disposed  to  accept  these  critical  the- 
ories and  endeavor  to  harmonize  them  with  the  Christian 
faith.  But  the  inherent  vice  in  these  systems  cannot  be 
eradicated.     The  inevitable  result  has  been  to  lower  the 


158      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Christian  faitli  to  tlie  level  of  these  perverted  theories 
instead  of  lifting  the  latter  up  to  the  level  of  a  Christian 
standard. 

CREDIBILITY  UNDERMINED. 

According  to  the  critical  hypothesis,  even  in  the  most 
moderate  hands,  the  situation  is  this :  The  Pentateuch, 
instead  of  being  one  continuous  and  self-consistent  his- 
tory from  the  pen  of  Moses,  is  made  up  of  four  distinct 
documents  which  have  been  woven  together,  but  which 
the  critics  claim  that  they  are  able  to  separate  and  re- 
store, as  far  as  the  surviving  remnants  of  each  j)ermit,  to 
their  original  condition.  These  severally  represent  the 
traditions  of  the  Mosaic  age  as  they  existed  six,  eight, 
and  ten  centuries  after  the  Exodus.^  When  these  are 
compared  they  are  found  to  be  in  perjoetual  conflict. 
Events  wear  an  entirely  different  complexion  in  one  from 
that  which  they  have  in  another;  the  characters  of  those 
who  appear  in  them,  the  motives  by  which  they  are  actu- 
ated, and  the  whole  impression  of  the  period  in  which 
they  live  is  entirely  different. 

It  is  very  evident  from  all  this  why  the  critics  tell  us 
that  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  must  be  modified.  If 
these  Pentateuchal  documents,  as  they  describe  them, 
were  inspired,  it  must  have  been  in  a  very  peculiar  sense. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  inerrancy,  but  of  wholesale  mutual 
contradiction  which  quite  destroys  their  credit  as  truthful 
histories.  And  these  contradictions,  be  it  observed,  are 
not  in  the  Pentateuch  itself,  but  result  from  the  mangling 
and  the  mal-interpretations  to  which  it  has  been  sub- 
jected by  the  critics. 

On  the  critical  hypothesis  the  real  facts  of  the  history 

'J  and  E  are  commonly  referred  to  the  eighth  or  ninth  century  B.C.; 
D  to  the  reign  of  Josiah  or  shortly  before  it ;  P  to  the  period  after  ths 
Babylonish  exile. 


THE  BEARING   OF  THE  DIVISIVE   CRITICISM     159 

are  not  wliat  they  seem  to  be  to  the  ordinary  reader. 
They  can  only  be  elicited  by  an  elaborate  critical  process. 
The  several  documents  must  first  be  disentangled  and  ' 
carefully  compared ;  the  points  in  which  they  agree  and 
those  in  which  they  differ  must  be  noted.  And  from  this 
conflicting  mass  of  testimony  the  critic  must  ascertain,  as 
best  he  may,  how  much  can  be  relied  upon  as  true,  how 
much  has  a  certain  measure  of  probability,  and  how  much 
must  be  rejected  altogether. 

Another  element  of  precariousness  enters  into  the  criti- 
cal attempts  to  distinguish  what  is  reliable  from  what  is 
not,  in  the  Pentateuchal  narratives.  By  the  confession 
of  the  critics  themselves,  and  by  the  necessity  of  their 
hypothesis,  the  documents  which  they  fancy  that  they 
have  discovered  are  by  no  means  complete.  By  singling 
out  the  paragraphs  and  clauses  which  are  regarded  as 
belonging  to  each  of  the  documents  severally,  and  putting 
them  together,  they  undertake  the  reconstruction  of  the 
original  documents,  which  are  supposed  in  the  first  in- 
stance to  have  circulated  separately  as  distinct  and  in- 
dependent publications,  but  to  have  been  subsequently 
fused  together  into  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  now  possess  it, 
by  a  series  of  redactors.  First,  the  two  oldest  docu- 
ments, J  and  E,  were  combined,  and  the  combination 
was  effected,  it  is  supposed,  by  the  following  method : 
sections  or  paragraphs,  longer  or  shorter,  were  taken 
alternately  from  J  and  from  E,  and  pieced  together  so 
as  to  form  one  continuous  narrative.  It  was  the  purpose 
of  the  redactor  to  make  the  best  use  that  he  possibl}' 
could  of  these  two  sources  at  his  command  in  preparing 
a  history  of  the  period  of  which  they  treat.  In  some 
cases  he  made  full  extracts  from  both  his  sources  of  all 
that  they  contained,  and  preserved  the  language  of  each 
unaltered,  making  no  additions  or  modifications  of  his 
own.     Frequently,  however,  it  was  necessary  to  adjust 


160      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

what  was  thus  taken  from  different  works,  in  order  to 
make  it  read  smoothly,  or  to  render  it  harmonious. 
Hence,  upon  occasion  he  introduced  explanatory  remarks, 
or  made  such  changes  as  seemed  to  be  required  in  what 
he  borrowed  from  J  or  from  E.  Sometimes  his  sources 
were  so  nearly  parallel  that  it  would  lead  to  needless 
repetition  to  use  them  both.  In  such  cases,  accordingly, 
he  confined  himself  to  the  account  given  in  one  of  the 
documents,  either  omitting  the  corresponding  statements 
of  the  other  altogether,  or  weaving  in  a  clause  or  a  sen- 
tence here  and  there  when  it  seemed  to  him  distinctive 
and  important.  Again,  cases  occur  in  which  the  narra- 
tives of  J  and  E  were  in  real  or  apparent  conflict.  Here 
he  does  the  best  that  he  can.  He  either  undertakes  to 
harmonize  their  accounts,  where  this  is  possible,  by  in- 
serting some  statement  which  seems  to  reconcile  them, 
by  so  changing  the  order  of  the  narrative  as  to  relieve 
the  difficulty,  or  by  converting  inconsistent  accounts  of 
the  same  event  into  two  different  transactions.  Where 
none  of  these  methods  is  practicable,  and  reconciliation 
is  out  of  the  question,  the  redactor  adheres  to  one  of  his 
sources  and  disregards  the  other. 

D,  which  was  composed  some  time  after  this  union  of 
JE,  existed  for  a  while  as  an  independent  work,  and  was 
then  combined  with  JE  by  a  new  redactor,  who,  besides 
attaching  D  to  this  previously  existing  work,  retouched 
JE  in  several  places,  and  introduced  a  number  of  pas- 
sages from  his  own  point  of  view,  which  was  different 
from  that  of  the  older  historians. 

Finally  the  document  P  was  prepared,  at  first  as  a 
separate  publication,  but  at  length  it  was  interwoven  by 
a  third  redactor  with  the  pre-existing  triplicate  treatise 
JED,  the  process  being  substantially  the  same  as  has 
already  been  described  in  the  case  of  JE. 

This  is  in  general  the  method  by  which  the  critics  sup- 


THE   BEAEING   OF   THE   DIVISIVE   CRITICISM:      161 

pose  that  the  Pentateuch  was  gradually  brought  to  its 
present  form.  It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  how  the  com- 
plexity of  the  critical  problem  is  increased  by  the  succes- 
sive editorial  labors  which  are  supposed  to  have  been 
brought  into  requisition  in  the  course  of  the  construction 
of  the  Pentateuch.  The  several  documents  must  not  only 
be  distinguished  from  each  other,  but  also  from  the  vari- 
ous redactional  additions  and  insertions  which  have  at 
any  time  been  made. 

Let  us  assume  that  this  delicate  and  difficult  analysis 
has  been  effected  with  unfailing  accuracy  notwithstand- 
ing the  liabilities  to  error  vitiating  the  result,  which  in- 
crease at  every  step.  But  waiving  this,  what  is  the  situa- 
tion when  the  analysis  has  been  accomplished  ?  and  what 
is  its  bearing  upon  the  historical  character  of  the  Penta- 
teuch ? 

The  critics  have  undertaken  to  reproduce  for  us  the 
documents  J,  E,  D,  and  P,  which  are  our  primary  sources 
for  both  the  Mosaic  and  the  patriarchal  history,  and 
which  date  respectively  six,  eight,  and  ten  centuries  after 
the  Exodus.  These  documents  are  not  only  at  variance 
with  each  other  in  their  statements  respecting  numerous 
jDarticulars,  thus  invalidating  each  other's  testimony  and 
showing  that  the  traditions  which  they  have  severally 
followed  are  mutually  inconsistent ;  but  they  are  besides 
very  incomplete.  Numerous  gaps  and  omissions  occur 
in  each.  Matter  which  they  once  contained,  as  is  evident 
from  allusions  still  found  in  them,  is  now  missing ;  how 
much  it  is  impossible  to  tell. 

But  what  is  more  serious,  the  parts  that  yet  remain 
have  been  manipulated  by  the  various  redactors.  The 
order  of  events  has  been  disturbed  ;  events  really  distinct 
have  been  confused  and  mistaken  for  one  and  the  same  ; 
and  narratives  of  the  same  event  have  been  mistaken  for 
events  altogether  distinct ;  statements  which  are  mislead- 
11 


162      THE  HIGHER  CEITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ing  have  been  inserted  with  the  view  of  harmonizing 
what  cannot  in  fact  be  reconciled ;  when  traditions  vary, 
instead  of  being  recorded  in  their  integrity  to  afford  some 
opportunity  of  ascertaining  the  truth  by  comparison, 
they  have  either  been  mingled  together,  thus  disturbing 
both,  or  one  only  has  been  preserved,  thus  leaving  no 
check  upon  its  inaccuracies.  All  this  and  more,  the 
critics  tell  us,  the  several  redactors  have  done  with  their 
materials.  No  charge  is  made  of  dishonest  intentions. 
But  surely  it  is  most  unfortunate  for  the  historical  value 
of  their  work.  There  is  no  way  of  ascertaining  hoAV  far 
these  materials  have  been  warped  from  their  proper  orig- 
inal intent  by  the  well-meant  but  mistaken  efforts  of  the 
redactors  to  correct  or  to  harmonize  them.  That  their 
meaning  has  been  seriously  altered  in  repeated  instances, 
which  are  pointed  out  by  the  critics,  creates  a  very 
natural  presumption  that  like  changes  have  been  freely 
made  elsewhere  which  can  now  no  longer  be  detected. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  in  what  sense  the  redac- 
tors, whose  work  has  been  described,  can  be  said  to  have 
been  inspired.  They  certainly  had  no  inspiration  which 
preserved  them  from  error,  or  even  from  making  the 
gravest  historical  mistakes.  They  had  no  such  inspira- 
tion as  gives  any  divine  attestation  to  their  work.  The 
Pentateuchal  history  gathers  no  confirmation  from  having 
passed  through  their  hands. 

Upon  the  theory  of  the  most  conservative  of  the  divi- 
sive critics,  for  it  is  this  with  which  we  have  been  deal- 
ing, what  dependence  can  be  placed  upon  the  historical 
statements  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  These  are,  as  they  allege, 
inaccurate  and  inconsistent  with  themselves  not  in  the 
patriarchal  period  merely,  but  throughout  the  lifetime  of 
Moses,  when  the  foundation  was  laid  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment religion  and  those  signal  miracles  were  wrought 
which  gave  it  undeniable  divine  sanction.     The  real  facts 


THE  BEAKING   OF  THE  DIVISIVE   CRITICISM      163 

are  not  those  wliicli  appear  upon  the  surface.  They  can 
ouly  be  elicited  by  an  elaborate  critical  process  which 
shall  detect  and  remove  the  mistaken  additions  and  at- 
tempted emendations  of  each  of  the  redactors,  and  shall 
then  restore  the  four  documents  to  their  pristine  condi- 
tion, so  far  as  what  remains  of  each  will  allow.  This  ' 
will  put  the  critic  in  possession  of  a  mutilated  record  of 
four  variant  traditions  of  the  Mosaic  age,  as  these  existed 
six,  eight,  and  ten  centuries  after  that  date.  And  now  it 
is  by  the  help  of  such  materials  in  the  way  of  compar- 
ison, correction,  and  elimination  that  he  must  sift  out 
and  ascertain  the  real  facts.  Must  we  not  say  that 
the  history  of  the  Mosaic  age,  if  this  be  the  only  way 
of  arriving  at  it,  rests  upon  a  quicksand?  and  that 
nothing  of  any  consequence  can  be  certainly  known  re- 
garding it  ? 

Here  is  no  question  merely  of  the  strict  inerrancy  of 
Scripture,  of  absolute  accuracy  in  unimportant  minutiae, 
of  precision  in  matters  of  science.  This  is  not  the  issue 
raised  by  the  theorizing  of  that  class  of  biblical  critics 
^ith  which  we  contend.  And  it  is  no  mere  question  of 
the  mode  of  inspiration.  But  it  is  the  question  whether  \ 
any  dependence  can  be  placed  upon  the  historical  truth  / 
of  the  Bible ;  whether  our  confidence  in  the  facts  re- 
corded in  the  Pentateuch  rests  upon  any  really  trust- 
worthy basis  ;  facts,  be  it  observed,  not  of  mere  scientific 
or  antiquarian  interest,  but  which  mark  the  com-se  of  • 
God's  revelations  to  the  patriarchs  and  to  Moses.  It  is  the 
certainty  of  facts  which  are  vital  to  the  religion  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  the  denial  of  whose  truth  weakens  the 
foundations  on  which  the  New  Testament  itself  is  built. 
The  critical  theory  which  we  have  been  examining  is  de- 
structive of  all  rational  certainty  of  the  reality  of  these 
truths  ;  and  thus  tends  to  overturn  the  historical  basis  of 
the  religion  of  the  Bible. 


164     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
UNTKIENDLY  TO  KEVEALED   RELIGION 

It  is  no  merely  literary  question,  then,  which  this  style 
of  criticism  raises.  It  is  not  simply  whether  the  Penta- 
teuch was  written  by  one  author  or  another,  while  its  his- 
toric truth  and  its  divine  authority  remain  unaffected. 
The  truth  and  evidence  of  the  entire  Mosaic  history  are 
at  stake.  And  with  this  stands  or  falls  the  reality  of 
God's  revelation  to  Moses  and  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Old  Testament.  And  this  again  is  not  only  vouched  for 
and  testified  to  by  our  divine  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  inspired  apostles,  but  upon  this  the  Lord 
Jesus  bases  his  own  claims.  Moses  wrote  of  him.  The 
predictions  uttered  and  recorded  by  Moses  speak  of 
Christ.  The  types,  of  which  both  the  Pentateuchal  his- 
tory and  the  Mosaic  institutions  are  full,  point  to  Christ. 
But  if  the  predictions  are  not  genuine,  and  the  history  is 
untrue,  and  the  institutions  were  not  ordained  of  God, 
but  are  simply  the  record  of  priestly  usage,  what  becomes 
of  the  witness  which  they  bear  to  Christ  ?  And  must 
not  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  sink  in  our  esteem 
from  a  religion  directly  revealed  of  God  to  one  which  is 
the  outgrowth  of  the  Israelitish  mind  and  heart,  under  an 
uplifting  influence  from  above,  it  may  be,  but  still  pro- 
ceeding from  man,  not  from  God  ?  It  is  then  based  not 
on  positive  truth  authoritatively  communicated  from  God 
to  man,  but  on  the  aspirations  and  reflections,  the  yearn- 
ings and  longings  and  spiritual  struggles  of  devout  and 
holy  men  seeking  after  God,  with  such  divine  guidance 
and  inward  illumination  as  good  men  in  every  age  may 
enjoy,  but  that  is  all.  There  is  no  direct  revelation,  no 
infallible  inspiration,  no  immediate  and  positive  disclos- 
ure of  the  mind  and  will  of  God. 

The  religion  of  the  Bible  is  not  merely  one  of  abstract 
doctrines  respecting  God.     It  does  not  consist  merely  in 


THE   BEARING   OF   THE  DIVISIVE   CRITICISM      165 

monotheism,  nor  in  right  notions  of  the  being  and  per- 
fections of  God  as  abstract  truths.  Nor  does  it  consist 
merely  in  devout  emotions  and  aspirations  toward  the 
Divine  Being.  But  both  its  doctrines  and  its  practical 
piety  are  based  on  positive  disclosures  which  God  has 
made  of  himself  in  his  dealings  with  men  and  his  com- 
munications to  them.  It  is  a  historical  religion  based 
on  palpable  outstanding  facts,  in  which  God  has  mani- 
fested himself,  and  by  which  he  has  put  himself  in  liv- 
ing relation  to  men.  Appeal  is  throughout  made  to  the 
mighty  deeds  and  the  great  wonders  wrought  by  his 
uplifted  hand  and  his  outstretched  arm  in  evidence  that 
it  is  the  almighty  God  who  has  acted  and  spoken  and 
revealed  himself,  and  no  mere  human  imaginings.  To 
discredit  these  biblical  statements  is  to  discredit  the 
biblical  revelation.  And  this  is  what  is  done  through- 
out the  entire  Mosaic  period,  not  by  Kuenen  and  Well- 
hausen  and  Stade  and  Cornill  merely,  who  are  avowed 
\  unbelievers  in  a  supernatural  revelation,  but  by  those 
likewise  who  claim  to  be  evangelical  critics. 

It  is  notorious  that  the  long  succession  of  distinguished 
scholars,  by  whom  the  divisive  hypothesis  has  been  elab- 
orated in  its  appKcation  to  the  Pentateuch,  have  been  un- 
believers in  an  immediate  supernatural  revelation.  And 
they  have  not  hesitated  to  avow  their  want  of  faith  in  the 
reality  of  prophetic  foresight  and  of  miraculous  powers. 
The  ready  method  by  which  these  have  been  set  aside 
is  by  dexterous  feats  of  criticism.  Revelations  of  truth 
and  duty  are  brought  down  to  such  a  period  in  the  his- 
tory as  may  fit  in  with  some  imagined  naturalistic  scheme 
of  development.  Predictions  which  have  been  too  accu- 
rately fulfilled  to  be  explained  away  as  vague  anticipa- 
tions, shrewd  calculations,  or  lucky  guesses,  must,  as 
they  claim,  have  been  uttered,  or  at  least  committed  to 
writing,   after  the   event.      Miracles  cannot  have  been 


\ 


166      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

recorded  by  eye-witnesses  or  contemporaries,  but  are 
regarded  as  legendary  exaggerations  of  events  that  are 
entirely  explicable  from  natural  causes.  It  is  therefore 
assumed  that  they  necessarily  imply  a  sufficient  interval 
between  the  occurrence  and  the  written  narrative  to  ac- 
count for  the  growth  of  the  story.  A  hypothesis  wrought 
out  on  the  basis  of  these  principles,  which  are  through- 
out covertly  assumed,  and  the  critical  phenomena  most 
ingeniously  adjusted  into  conformity  with  them,  can  lead 
to  no  other  result  than  that  with  reference  to  which  it 
was  shaped  from  the  beginning.  While  the  discussion 
seemingly  turns  on  words  and  phrases  and  the  supposed 
peculiarities  of  individual  writers,  the  bent  of  the  whole 
thing  is  to  rivet  the  conclusion  which  the  framers  of  the 
hypothesis  have  tacitly  though  steadily  contemplated,  a 
conclusion  irrefragable  on  their  philosophical  principles, 
viz.,  that  the  supernatural  must  be  eliminated  from  the 
Scriptures.  And  hence  the  hypothesis  is  at  this  time 
one  of  the  most  potent  weapons  in  the  hands  of  unbelief. 
Supernatural  facts,  which  stand  unshaken  in  the  Mosaic 
records  like  granite  mountains,  impregnable  to  all  other 
methods  of  attack,  dissolve  like  wax  in  the  critics'  cru- 
cible. 

Real  discoveries  are  not,  of  course,  to  be  discredited 
because  of  false  principles  that  are  entertained  by  the 
discoverers,  or  wrong  motives  that  may  have  influenced 
them.  If  unbelievers  in  divine  inspiration  by  their 
learned  investigations  can  assist  us  in  the  elucidation  or 
more  correct  appreciation  of  the  sacred  writings  in  any 
respect,  we  welcome  their  aid  with  all  our  hearts.  But 
all  is  not  gold  that  glitters.  And  there  can  be  no  impro- 
priety in  subjecting  novelties  to  careful  scrutiny,  before 
we  adopt  conclusions  at  war  with  our  most  cherished  con- 
victions and  with  what  we  hold  to  be  well-established 
truths.      The  apostle's  maxim  applies  here,  "Prove  all 


THE  BEAPwING   OF   THE   DIVISIVE   CRITICISM      167 

tilings ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."  The  recent  ac- 
ceptance of  this  hyj)othesis  by  men  of  high  standing  in 
evangelical  circles  does  not  rob  it  of  the  pernicious  ten- 
dencies inwrought  in  its  whole  texture,  and  will  not  pre- 
vent the  full  development  of  these  tendencies,  if  it  shall 
ever  gain  prevalence. 

One  very  momentous  consequence  of  the  adoption  of 
this  hypothesis  is  palpable  upon  its  surface.  It  nullifies 
at  once  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and/ 
substitutes  anonymous  documents  of  late  age  in  an  im- 
perfect state  of  preservation,  which  have  been  woven 
together,  and  to  some  extent  modified,  by  anonymous  re- 
dactors. It  is  at  once  obvious  what  a  vast  diminution 
hence  results  in  the  external  guarantee  of  the  truth  of 
the  record.  If  Moses  himself  committed  to  writing  the 
events  in  which  he  bore  so  conspicuous  a  part,  and  the 
laws  and  institutions  enacted  by  him,  and  this  product 
of  Moses's  own  pen  has  been  preserved  to  us  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, we  have  a  voucher  of  the  very  first  order  of  the 
accuracy  of  the  narrative,  in  every  particular,  proceeding 
as  it  does  not  only  from  a  contemporary  and  eye-witness 
cognizant  of  every  detail,  but  from  the  leader  and  legis- 
lator whose  genius  shaped  all  that  he  records,  and  who 
was  more  than  any  other  interested  in  its  true  and  faith- 
ful transmission. 

It  would  be  a  relief  if  these  anonymous  sources  were 
the  work  of  contemporaries  and  participants  in  the  events 
recorded.  If,  as  Delitzsch  assumed  when  he  first  suffered 
himself  to  be  captivated  by  the  hypothesis,  Eleazar  or 
Joshua,  or  men  of  like  stamp  with  them,  were  the  authors 
of  the  documents,  and  these  were  put  together  in  the  age 
immediately  succeeding  that  of  Moses,  it  might  seem  as 
though  this  would  afford  abundant  assurance  of  the  truth 
of  their  statements.  But  who  is  to  assure  us  that  Elea- 
zar or  any  of  his  compeers  had  a  hand  in  these  records  ? 


168      THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

If  we  abandon  the  Mosaic  autliorsliip,  wliicli  is  so  explic- 
itly and  repeatedly  certified  by  the  earliest  tradition 
that  we  are  able  to  summon,  we  are  out  upon  the  open 
sea  with  nothing  to  direct  our  course.  Nothing  can  dis- 
prove its  composition  by  Moses  which  does  not  disprove 
its  origin  in  the  Mosaic  age.  All  thought  of  its  proceed- 
ing from  the  pen  of  contemporaries  must  then  be  aban- 
doned. We  go  blindly  groping  along  the  centuries  in 
quest  of  authors.  All  is  unwarranted  conjecture  ;  there 
is  no  firm  lodgement  anywhere.  The  notion  that  the 
authors  of  these  so-called  documents,  or  the  redactors 
who  compiled  the  Pentateuch  from  them,  can  be  identi- 
fied in  the  absence  of  any  ancient  testimony  pointing  to 
another  than  Moses  is  utterly  groundless. 

But  if  the  authors  of  the  several  documents  were  infal- 
libly inspired,  and  if  the  redactors  were  likewise  divinely 
guarded  from  error,  would  we  not  then  have  a  perfectly 
trustworthy  record,  as  much  so  though  it  were  produced 
in  a  comparatively  late  age,  as  if  it  had  been  contempo- 
raneous with  the  events  themselves  ?  This  fond  fancy  is 
dispelled  the  moment  we  come  to  examine  the  actual 
working  of  the  hypothesis,  as  this  has  been  abundantly 
exhibited  in  the  preceding  pages.  It  is  constructed  on 
the  assumption  not  merely  of  the  fallibility  but  the  fal- 
sity of  the  documents,  whose  accounts  are  represented  to 
be  not  merely  divergent  but  contradictory ;  upon  the  as- 
sumption likewise  of  the  incompetency  of  the  redactors, 
even  if  they  are  charged  with  nothing  worse.  They  mis- 
understand their  authorities,  and,  to  say  the  least,  unin- 
tentionally pervert  them,  ascribing  to  them  a  meaning 
foreign  to  their  original  and  proper  intent.  The  Penta- 
teuch is  thus  held  to  be  based  upon  conflicting  narratives, 
written  several  centuries  after  the  occurrences  which 
they  profess  to  relate,  and  embodying  the  diverse  tradi- 
tions which  had  meanwhile  grown  up  respecting  them. 


THE   BEAEING   OF   THE   DIVISIVE   CRITICISM      169 

These  the  redactors  have  undertaken  to  harmonize, 
though  they  were,  so  the  critics  affirm,  mutually  incon- 
sistent. They  have  done  this  by  rearrangements  and 
additions  of  their  own  that  obscure  and  alter  their  real 
meaning.  The  critics  accordingly  tell  us  that  the  Pen- 
tateuch on  its  face  yields  a  very  incorrect  representation 
of  what  actually  took  place  in  the  time  to  which  it  re- 
lates. The  only  way  to  reach  the  real  facts  is  to  undo 
the  work  of  the  redactors,  eliminate  their  misleading  ad- 
ditions, and  restore,  as  far  as  possible,  the  documents 
to  the  condition  in  which  they  were  before  they  were 
meddled  with.  This  will  put  us  in  possession  of  the 
discordant  traditions  which  had  arisen  in  the  course  of 
centuries  respecting  the  events  in  question.  The  com- 
parison of  these  traditions  will  yield  a  modicum  of  truth 
upon  the  subject,  and  the  rest  must  be  left  to  con- 
jecture. 

And  this,  be  it  remembered,  is  a  part  of  the  canon  of 
Scripture,  the  part,  in  fact,  which  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  the  whole,  that  Scripture,  which  according  to  our 
blessed  Lord  cannot  be  broken,  and  which  according  to 
the  apostle  Paul  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God.  Is 
it  surprising  that  they  who  accept  this  hypothesis  insist 
that  the  current  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  divine 
inspiration  requires  revision  ? 

The  extent  to  which  the  Mosaic  history  crumbles 
away  under  such  treatment  as  has  been  illustrated  above, 
varies  with  different  critics.  To  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen 
it  is  utterly  untrustworthy.  Others  recoil  from  such  un- 
sparing demolition,  and  allow  more  or  less  to  stand  un- 
challenged. But  this  difference  of  result  is  due  to  the 
subjective  state  of  the  critic  himself,  not  to  any  clear 
and  intelligible  ground  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  The 
whole  process  is  vicious.  The  claim  is  preposterous  that 
a  consistent  and  continuous  narrative  may  be  rent  apart 


170     THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ad  lihiturrij  and  meanings  assigned  to  isolated  portions, 
which  the  words  might  admit  if  viewed  independently, 
but  which  are  impossible  in  the  connection.  Yet  this 
lies  for  the  most  part  at  the  basis  of  the  divisive  criticism, 
determines  generally  the  line  of  fracture,  and  imparts  to 
the  whole  subject  nearly  all  of  its  interest  and  importance 
in  the  view  of  its  adherents.  Even  if  the  partition  hy- 
pothesis were  well  founded  and  the  documents,  of  which 
the  critics  speak  so  confidently,  had  a  real  and  separate 
existence,  the  redactors  who  had  them  in  their  orig- 
inal completeness  were  much  more  competent  to  judge 
of  their  true  meaning  than  modern  critics,  who  by  their 
own  confession  possess  them  only  in  a  fragmentary  and 
mutilated  condition,  and  so  blended  together  that  it  is 
extremely  difficult,  and  often  quite  impossible,  to  disen- 
tangle them  with  certainty  and  accuracy.  Under  these 
circumstances  to  deal  with  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
form  in  a  manner  which  implies  either  mistake  or  mis- 
representation on  the  part  of  the  redactors  is  gratuitous 
and  inadmissible  unless  on  the  clearest  and  most  unmis- 
takable evidence. 

It  is  nevertheless  a  fundamental  assumption  in  the  lit- 
erary partition  of  the  Pentateuch,  that  the  redactors  have 
misunderstood  or  misrepresented  their  sources  ;  that  nar- 
ratives, which  were  but  varying  accounts  of  the  same 
thing,  were  supposed  by  them  to  relate  to  distinct  occur- 
rences, and  they  have  treated  them  as  such,  wrongly  as- 
signing them  to  different  occasions  and  perhaps  different 
persons ;  that  they  have  combined  their  sources  in  such 
a  way  as  to  give  a  wrong  coloring  to  their  contents,  so 
that  they  make  a  false  impression  and  convey  a  mean- 
ing quite  different  from  that  which  properly  belonged  to 
them  in  their  original  connection.  And  the  chief  value 
and  interest  of  the  critic  is  thought  to  be  the  new  light 
which  he  brings  into  the  narrative  and  the  altered  mean- 


THE  BEAEING   OF  THE   DIVISIVE   CRITICISM      171 

ing  wliich  he  discovers  by  undoing  the  work  of  the  redac- 
tors, Avho  are  supposed  to  have  cut  away  much  precious 
material  from  their  documents  that  is  now  irrecoverably 
lost,  and  to  have  modified  even  the  mutilated  remnant 
which  they  have  handed  down  to  us.  Unless  this  be  so, 
what  is  gained  by  the  partition  ?  If  everything  means  just 
what  it  did  before,  what  good  has  been  accomplished  ? 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  meaning  has  been  altered,  the 
question  returns,  AVhich  is  right  and  which  is  the  bet- 
ter entitled  to  our  confidence,  the  redactors  who  had 
ample  means  of  knowing  what  they  were  doing,  or  the 
modern  critic  who  relies  upon  his  conjectures  for  his 
facts  ? 

A  yet  more  serious  aspect  of  this  literary  partition  is 
that  there  is  no  limit  to  it.  If  the  door  be  opened  even 
on  a  crack  to  admit  it,  all  is  at  the  mercy  of  what  there 
is  no  means  of  controlling  ;  and  nothing  can  prevent  the 
door  being  flung  as  wide  open  as  the  hinges  will  allow. 
The  appetite  for  division  and  subdivision  grows  by  every 
concession  made  to  quiet  it.  The  analysis  of  Wellhau- 
sen,  of  Dillmann,  of  Jiilicher,  and  of  Stade  shows  that 
we  have  not  yet  reached  the  beginning  of  the  end. 
Fresh  seams  are  constantly  discovered  in  what  critics 
themselves  have  previously  regarded  as  indivisible ; 
fresh  errors  and  mistakes  are  discovered  in  the  narra- 
tive that  were  never  suspected  before ;  and  the  whole  be- 
comes the  plaything  of  the  critic's  fancy.  The  advocates 
of  literary  partition  among  us  at  present  may  stand  on 
comparatively  conservative  ground  under  the  influence 
of  their  own  past  training  and  of  cherished  principles, 
w^hich  they  are  unwilling  to  abandon.  But  what  is  to 
hinder  their  followers,  who  are  not  similarly  anchored, 
from  piu'suing  this  partition  to  its  legitimate  conse- 
quences ?  It  is  the  first  step  that  costs.  And  the  ini- 
tial step  in  this  partition  is  the  admission  of  the  un- 


172      THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH 

trustworthiness  of  the  sacred  record  as  it  now  stands, 
and  the  necessity  of  transposition,  alteration,  and  recon- 
struction in  order  to  reach  the  real  truth.  After  this  in- 
itial admission  has  been  made,  everything  further  is  but 
a  question  of  degrees.  The  Scripture  is  no  longer  relia- 
ble in  its  present  form.  The  inspiration  of  its  waiters 
has  been  surrendered.  We  have  lost  our  infallible  guide. 
And  distrust  may  be  carried  to  any  length  that  the  in- 
ward disposition  of  the  operator  inclines  him  to  indulge 
it.  In  yielding  the  principle  everything  has  been  con- 
ceded that  is  involved  in  it  and  follows  from  it.  The 
avalanche  cannot  be  arrested  midway  in  its  descent. 

The  Pentateuch  in  its  unity  and  integrity  is  impregna- 
ble to  hostile  assaults.  But  accept  the  partition  of  it 
which  the  critics  offer,  and  the  truth  and  inspiration  of 
this  portion  of  Holy  Scripture  no  longer  rest  upon  any 
solid  basis. 

DEISM,   RATIONALISM,   DIVISIVE   CRITICISM. 

The  study  of  the  Bible  on  its  purely  literary  side  has 
many  and  strong  attractions  for  men  of  letters.  It  re- 
cords the  history  and  the  institutions  of  a  most  remark- 
able people.  It  gives  an  insight  into  their  character  and 
usages,  into  their  domestic,  social,  and  political  life ; 
particularly  it  exhibits  their  religion  in  its  spirit  and  its 
outward  forms,  a  religion  altogether  unique  in  the  ancient 
world,  and  the  influence  of  which  has  been  deep  and 
wide-spread  in  later  times.  It  contains  all  that  has  been 
preserved  of  their  literary  products  through  a  long  series 
of  ages,  including  narratives  of  tender  and  touching  in- 
terest, of  deeds  of  heroic  valor,  of  wise  administration,  of 
resolute  adherence  to  right  and  duty  under  trying  cir- 
cumstances ;  poetic  effusions  of  rare  beauty,  of  exalted 
genius,  on  the  most  elevated  themes,  wise  sayings,  the 


THE   BEARING   OF   THE   DIVISIVE   CRITICISM      173 

utterance  of  sages  or  embodying  profound  and  extensive 
observation  ;  the  discourses  of  the  prophets,  haranguing 
kings  and  people  in  great  critical  conjunctures  with  im- 
passioned patriotism  and  the  noblest  impulses,  inculcat- 
ing and  enforcing  the  loftiest  principles  of  action.  There 
is  much  in  all  this  to  stir  the  enthusiasm  and  excite  the 
interest  of  those  who  are  engaged  in  literary  pursuits. 

It  is  not  strange,  then,  that  in  the  revival  of  letters, 
when  the  stores  of  ancient  learning  were  thrown  open  to 
the  gaze  of  the  modern  world,  and  men  sat  delighted  be- 
fore the  masterpieces  of  Greece  and  Rome  and  the  Orient, 
they  should  be  charmed  likewise  by  the  fascinations  of 
Hebrew  literature.  Scholars  were  drawn  with  equal  rel- 
ish to  the  songs  of  Horace,  of  Pindar,  and  of  David ; 
they  listened  admiringly  alike  to  the  eloquent  and  burn- 
ing words  of  Cicero,  Demosthenes,  and  Isaiah.  The 
Bible  was  scanned  with  avidity  as  the  extant  body  of 
Israel's  literature  ;  just  that  and  nothing  more.  It  was  a 
most  engaging  study.  It  was  expounded  and  illustrated 
and  commented  on  from  professors'  chairs  and  in  numer- 
ous volumes,  precisely  as  the  works  of  historians,  poets, 
philosophers,  and  orators  of  other  lands.  But,  with  aU 
the  admiration  that  was  bestowed  upon  it,  the  unique 
character  of  its  claims  was  lost  sight  of.  Its  inspiration 
and  divine  authority  did  not  enter  into  the  account.  The 
immediate  voice  and  hand  of  God,  which  rule  in  the 
whole,  were  overlooked. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  study  of  the  Bible  thus  pur- 
sued would  necessarily  be  warped.  Treated  as  a  purely 
human  product,  it  must  be  reduced  to  the  level  of  that 
which  it  was  esteemed  to  be.  The  supernatural  must  be 
eliminated  from  it,  since  it  was  regarded  as  the  resultant 
of  pm-ely  human  forces.  And  stripped  of  the  super- 
natural, the  Bible  becomes  a  totally  different  book. 
There  are  three  evident  indications  of  God's  immediate 


174      THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

presence,  which  pervade  the  Scriptures  from  beginning 
to  end,  and  are  inwrought  into  its  entire  structure,  and 
with  which  they  must  reckon  who  recognize  in  its  con- 
tents merely  that  which  is  natural  and  human.  These 
are  miracle,  prophecy,  and  revealed  truth.  The  pages  of 
the  Bible  are  ablaze  with  recorded  facts  involving  the 
immediate  exercise  of  almighty  power,  with  predictive 
utterances  unveiling  the  future  hid  from  mortal  view, 
and  with  disclosures  which  quite  transcend  the  reach  of 
the  human  faculties.  No  man  can  undertake  the  study 
of  the  Bible,  however  superficially,  without  encountering 
these,  which  are  among  its  most  prominent  features. 
And  if  it  is  to  be  comprehended  from  a  naturalistic  point 
of  view,  they  must  in  some  way  be  disposed  of. 

Three  different  methods  have  been  devised  for  getting 
rid  of  these  troublesome  factors.  One  is  that  of  a  scoff- 
ing deism,  which  sets  aside  the  supernatural  by  imputing 
it  to  deception  and  priestcraft.  It  is  all  held  to  be  trace- 
able to  impositions  practised  upon  the  credulity  of  the 
uninstructed  vulgar  in  order  to  exalt  the  ministers  of 
religion  in  their  eyes,  perhaps  for  the  promotion  of  selfish 
ends,  perhaj)s  with  the  worthier  motive  of  obtaining  sanc- 
tion for  useful  institutions  or  gaining  credence  for  valu- 
able teachings,  which  they  could  not  otherwise  have  been 
induced  so  easily  to  receive.  It  is  only  men  who  are 
devoid  of  moral  earnestness  themselves,  and  cannot 
appreciate  moral  earnestness  in  others,  who  can  rest 
satisfied  with  such  an  explanation.  It  is  so  manifestly 
opposed  to  the  whole  spirit  and  tenor  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings, and  to  the  character  of  the  great  leaders  of  Israel, 
that  it  has  never  had  any  prevalence  among  those  who 
had  any  sympathy  with,  or  a  just  conception  of,  the  men  of 
the  Bible.  It  was  soon  cast  off,  therefore,  by  those  who 
made  any  pretension  to  real  scholarship,  and  left  to 
frivolous  scoffers. 


THE  BEAPwING   OF  THE  DIVISIVE   CRITICISM      175 

A  second  mode  of  dealing  with  the  supernatural,  with- 
out admitting  its  reality,  is  that  of  the  old  rationalistic 
exegesis.  This  regards  it  simply  as  oriental  exaggera- 
tion. It  is  looked  upon  as  the  habit  of  the  period  to 
think  and  speak  in  superlatives,  and  to  employ  grandilo- 
quent figures  and  forms  of  ex23ression.  In  order  to  as- 
certain the  actual  meaning  of  the  writer  these  must  be 
reduced  to  the  proportion  of  ordinary  events.  Thus 
Eichhorn,  the  father  of  the  higher  criticism,  had  no  dif- 
ficulty in  accepting  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  defending  its  credibility,  while  at  the  same 
time  he  discarded  the  miraculous.  This  work,  he  con- 
tended, must  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  the  age  to  which  it  belonged.  Its  poetic  embellish- 
ments must  not  be  mistaken  for  plain  prose,  and  its  bold 
figures  must  not  be  converted  into  literal  statements. 
When  the  oriental  imagery  is  duly  estimated,  and  the 
elaborate  drapery  in  which  the  imaginative  writer  has 
dressed  his  thought  is  stripped  off,  it  will  be  found  that 
his  real  meaning  does  not  transcend  what  is  purely  nat- 
ural. There  was  nothing  miraculous  about  the  plagues 
of  Egypt ;  it  was  only  an  annus  mirahilis,  a  year  of  ex- 
traordinary occurrences,  remarkable  in  their  number  and 
severity,  but  wholly  traceable  to  natural  causes.  There 
was  nothing  miraculous  in  the  passage  of  the  Ked  Sea, 
or  the  events  at  Sinai,  or  in  what  took  place  during  the 
forty  years  in  the  desert.  The  apparently  miraculous 
features  belong  merely  to  the  style  of  description,  not  to 
the  facts  described.  There  was  in  this  no  intentional 
falsehood,  no  attempt  to  deceive.  It  was  the  well-under- 
stood way  of  writing  and  speaking  in  that  age.  And 
thus  the  supernatural  is  evaporated  by  hermeneutical 
rules.  But  this  unnatural  style  of  interpretation  could 
not  long  maintain  itself.  The  attempt  to  reduce  heathen 
myths  to  intelligible  history,  and  to  bring  down  the  mir- 


176     THE  HIGEER  CRITICISM   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

acles  of  the  Bible  to  the  level  of  ordinary  occurrences, 
proved  alike  abortive.  The  hypothesis  of  rhetorical  ex- 
aggeration, :f,ashionable  as  it  was  at  one  time,  was  accord- 
ingly abandoned.  The  rule  of  common-sense  must  be 
applied  to  Scripture  as  to  any  other  book,  that  the  writer 
must  be  understood  to  mean  what  he  says,  not  what  some 
interpreter  may  fancy  that  he  ought  to  have  said. 

The  third  mode  of  banishing  the  supernatural  from  the 
Bible  is  by  subjecting  it  to  the  processes  of  the  higher 
criticism.  This  is  the  most  plausible  as  well  as  the  most 
effective  method  of  accomplishing  this  result.  It  is  the 
most  plausible  because  the  animus  of  the  movement  is 
concealed,  and  the  desired  end  is  reached  not  by  aiming 
at  it  directly  and  avowedly,  but  as  the  apparently  inci- 
dental consequence  of  investigations  pursued  professedly 
for  a  different  purpose.  And  it  is  the  most  effective  be- 
cause it  supplies  a  complete  antidote  for  the  supernatural 
in  each  of  its  forms.  Every  reported  miracle  is  met  by 
the  allegation  that  the  record  dates  centuries  after  its 
supposed  occurrence,  leaving  ample  time  for  the  legend- 
ary amplification  of  natural  events.  Every  prediction 
which  has  been  so  accurately  fulfilled  that  it  cannot  be 
explained  away  as  a  vague  anticipation,  shrewd  conject- 
ure, or  fortunate  coincidence,  is  met  by  the  allegation 
that  it  was  not  committed  to  writing  till  after  the 
event.  Bevelations  of  truth  in  advance  of  what  the  un- 
aided faculties  of  men  could  be  supposed  to  have  at- 
tained to  must  be  reconstructed  into  accordance  with 
the  requirements  of  a  gradual  scheme  of  development. 
The  stupendous  miracles  of  the  Mosaic  period,  the  far- 
reaching  predictions  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  its  minute 
and  varied  legislation  are  all  provided  for  by  the  critical 
analysis,  which  parts  it  into  separate  documents  and  as- 
signs these  documents  severally  to  six,  eight,  and  ten 
centuries  after  the  exodus  from  Egypt. 


THE   BEARING   OF   THE   DIVISIVE   CRITICISM      177 

These  critical  results  are  based  professedly  on  purely 
literary  grounds,  on  diction  and  style  and  correspondence 
with  historical  surroundings.  And  3^et  he  who  traces 
the  progress  of  critical  opinion  will  discover  that  these 
are  invariably  subordinated  to  the  end  of  neutralizing  the 
supernatural,  and  that  they  are  so  managed  as  to  lead  up 
to  this  conclusion.  The  development  of  critical  hypothe- 
ses inimical  to  the  genuineness  and  the  truth  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible  has  from  the  beginning  been  in  the  hands 
of  those  who  were  antagonistic  to  supernatural  religion, 
whose  interest  in  the  Bible  was  purely  literary,  and  who 
refused  to  recognize  its  claims  as  an  immediate  and 
authoritative  revelation  from  God.  These  hypotheses, 
which  are  largely  speculative  and  conjectural,  are  to  a 
great  extent  based  upon  and  shaped  by  unproved  assump- 
tions of  the  falsity  of  positive  scrijDtural  statements. 
They  are  in  acknowledged  variance  with  the  historical 
truth  of  much  of  the  Bible,  and  require,  as  is  freely  con-  ^  ^"^^^^ 
fessed,  the  complete  reconstruction  of  the  sacred  history. 
They  require  us  to  suppose  that  the  course  of  events 
and  the  progress  of  divine  revelation  must  throughout 
have  been  very  different  from  the  representations  of  the 
Bible. 

Within  a  very  few  years  professedly  evangelical  men 
have  ventured  upon  the  hazardous  experiment  of  at- 
tempting a  compromise  in  this  matter.  They  propose 
to  accept  these  hypotheses  in  spite  of  their  antibibli- 
cal  character,  in  spite  of  their  incompatibility  with  the 
historical  truth  of  the  Bible,  in  spite  of  their  contraven- 
ing its  explicit  statements,  in  spite  of  the  grave  questions 
which  they  raise  respecting  the  fallibility  of  our  Lord's 
own  teaching ;  and  they  expect  to  retain  their  Christian 
faith  with  only  such  modifications  as  these  newly  adopted 
hypotheses  may  require.  They  are  now  puzzling  them- 
selves over  the  problem  of  harmonizing  Christ's  sanction 
12 


178      THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   THE  PENTATEUCH 

given  to  false  views  respecting  the  Old  Testament  with 
implicit  faith  in  him  as  a  divine  teacher.  And  some  of 
them  in  their  perplexity  over  this  enigma  come  perilously 
near  impairing  the  truth  of  his  claims.  Would  it  not 
be  wiser  for  them  to  revise  their  own  ill-judged  alliance 
with  the  enemies  of  evangelical  truth,  and  inquire  whether 
Christ's  view  of  the  Old  Testament  may  not,  after  all,  be 
the  true  view? 


INDEX 


A.BEN  Ezra,  47 

Abraham,  34  • 

Agreement  of  critics  not  a  proof 
of  their  correctness,  130,  131 

Amos,  allusions  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, 56-58,  note 

Anachronisms  alleged,  47-49 ; 
answered,  50,  51 ;  suspected  in 
the  Jehovist,  69 

Ancient  heretics,  why  they  de- 
nied Moses's  authorship,  47 

Antediluvian  period,  the  aim  of, 
20,  21 

Aramean,  Jewish,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  1 

Arguments  in  support  of  the 
divisive  hypotheses,  63-67; 
shown  to  be  fallacious,  88-118, 
132 

Ark  of  the  Covenant,  sacrifices 
legitimate  where  it  was  pres- 
ent, 152 

Astruc,  62  and  note 

Augustin,  63,  note 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  142,  note 
Balaam,  divine  names  in  the  his- 
tory of,  97,  98 
Bancroft,  illustration  from,  60 
Beattie,  Professor    F.   R.,   143, 

note 
Bible    studied  merely    as   liter- 
ature, regardless  of  its  divine 
authority,  173 
Bissell,  142,  note,  143,  note 


Bleek,  76  and  note 

Boehmer,  83,  note 

Boethius,  129,  note 

Book  of  the  Covenant,  36,  136- 
139,  144,  146, 147,  149 

Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
function  of  each,  4 ;  triple  di- 
vision of,  4,  5 

Bredenkamp,  142,  note 

Briggs,  Professor,  142,  note 

CiESAR's  Commentaries,  129, 
note 

Cain  and  his  descendants,  23,  23 

Carpzov,  49 

Caspari,  56,  note 

Cave,  Dr.  A,,  143,  note 

Chambers,  Dr.  T.  W.,  143,  note 

Charlemagne,  early  oblivion  of 
his  laws,  154 

Chasms  in  the  so-called  docu- 
ments, 107,  108,  161 

Christ's  testimony  to  Moses's  au- 
thorship, 32  ;  depreciated  by 
critics,  33,  177  ;  by  Le  Clerc, 
49 

Chronicles,  why  in  the  third  di- 
vision of  the  canon,  5,  6 

Cicero's  orations  pronounced  for- 
geries, 127,  note,  128,  129 

Complexity  of  the  critical  prob- 
lem, 117 

Conflicting  criteria,  how  evaded, 
116 

Continuity  of  documents  as  an 


180 


INDEX 


argument  for  partition,  64 ; 
discussed,  106-109 

Cornill,  142,  note,  165 

Credibility  of  tlie  Pentateuch  as 
affected  by  its  authorship,  32, 
167  ;  undermined  by  the  par- 
tition hypotheses,  158-163,  169 

Crystallization  hypothesis,  81, 
82 

Daniel,  why  in  the  third  divi- 
sion of  the  canon,  5 

Deism,  174 

Delitzsch,  130, 142,  note,  167 

Deuterouomic  code,  36,  37,  136- 
139,  145,  148,  155  ;  its  preface 
and  sequel,  41 

Deuteronomy,  analysis  of,  28 ; 
extent  of  the  law  to  which  it 
alludes,  37,  note 

Development  hypothesis,  136- 
155  ;  revolutionized  critical 
opinions,  143  ;  antagonizes 
statements  of  Scripture,  144- 
146 ;  assumes  discrepancies 
which  do  not  exist,  147-149 ; 
based  on  violations  of  law 
which  are  otherwise  explained, 
150-153  ;  involves  gratuitous 
assumptions  of  fraud,  154, 155, 
and  other  impossible  supposi- 
tions, 155 

De  Wette,  76,  77,  note 

Diction,  diversitj'-  of,  65,  66, 113- 
117 

Dillmann,  109,  112,  115,  130, 
131,  142,  note,  171 

Distinct  events  wrongly  identi- 
fied, 109,  110 

Diversity  of  style,  diction,  and 
ideas  made  an  argument  for 
partition,  65-67  ;  discussed, 
113-117 

Divine  institutions  in  the  antedi- 


luvian and  postdiluvian  pe- 
riods, 23 

Divine  names  made  an  argument 
for  partition,  63  ;  discussed, 
89  sqq.  ;  their  alternation  not 
explicable  by  the  partition  hy- 
potheses, 89-99  ;  but  by  their 
signification  and  usage,  102- 
105  ;  and  the  discretion  of  the 
writer,  106 

Divisive  criticism  inimical  to 
credibility  and  to  supernatural 
religion,  157-177 

Document  hypothesis,  61-71  ; 
how  related  to  Moses's  author- 
ship, 67,  68  ;  tendency  to  sub- 
division, 72,  73, 171 ;  modified 
by  Hupfeld,  82,  83 

Documents,  so-called,  not  con- 
tinuous, 106-108,  161  ;  mutu- 
ally dependent,  109  ;  alleged 
to  be  inconsistent  with  each 
other,  161,  162  ;  not  infallibly 
inspired,  168 

Doublets,  so-called,  112 

Drechsler,  81  and  note 

Driver,  Dr.,  130,  142,  note 

Egyptian  allusions  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, 45 

Eichhorn,  62  and  note 

Elementary  character  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Pentateuch, 
45 

Ellicott,  Bishop,  143,  note 

Elohim  in  Jehovist  sections,  91 
sqq.  ;  its  signification  and  us- 
age, 102-105 

Ewald,  76  and  note,  81,  82,  note, 
87,  134,  135 

Exodus,  analysis  of,  25,  26 ;  ch. 
vi.  3,  68,  99,  100 

Forged  codes  of  laws  could  not 


INDEX 


181 


have  been  imposed  on  the  peo- 
ple, 42,  155 

Fragment  hypothesis,  71-74  ;  its 
absurdity  shown,  74-76 

French,  Dr.  R.  V.,  143,  note 

Genesis,  analysis  of,  21-25 ;  ch. 

iv.  26,  100,  102 
Genuineness  of   the   laws,  134- 

156 
Goethe's  Faust,  prologue  of,  130 
Gospel     harmony,     illustration 

from,  60 
Graf,  140,  141 
Gram  berg,  62,  note 
Greek,  the  language  of  the  New 

Testament,  1 
Grounds    of    literary    partition 

considered,  88-118 

Hartmann,  71  and  note 

Havernick,  56,  note,  81  and  note 

Hebrew,  the  language  of  the  Old 
Testament,  1 

Ileinrici,  129 

Hengstenberg,  58,  note,  81  and 
note,  103,  104 

Hexateuch,  in  what  sense  appro- 
priate, 15 

High  places  illegal,  153 

Higher  criticism  as  a  mode  of 
eliminating  the  supernatural, 
176,  177 

Historical  books,  their  place  in 
the  plan  of  the  Old  Testament, 
8,  9,  14 

Historical  passages  attributed  to 
.ALoses,  37,  38 

History  of  the  Pentateuch  pre- 
paratory for  the  law,  19  ;  be- 
gins with  the  creation,  21 ; 
cnasms  only  apparent,  29  ;  by 
the  same  author  as  the  law, 
39 


Hoedemaker,  Dr.,  143,  note 

Hoffmann,  142,  note 

Holzinger,  142,  note 

Homer,  127 

Horace,  129,  note 

Hosea,  allusions  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, 56-58,  note 

Hupfcld,  82  and  note,  87,  134, 
135 

Hypothesis  bolstered  up  by  in- 
ferences from  itself,  92 

Ideas,  diversity  of,  as  an  argu- 
ment for  partition,  65-67,  113 
sqq. 

Ilgen,  83,  note 

Incongruities  in  the  partition  of 
the  Pentateuch,  125, 126 

Inerrancy  in  minutiae  not  the  is- 
sue raised  by  divisive  critics, 
163 

Inspiration,  a  new  doctrine  of, 
demanded  by  the  critics,  169 

Isaac  ben  Jasos,  47 

Isaiah,  allusions  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, 54,  55,  note 

Jehovah  in  Elohist  sections,  91 
sqq.  ;  the  name  alleged  to  be 
unknown  to  the  patriarchs,  99- 
101  ;  its  signification  and  us- 
age, 102-105 

Jehcvist  of  the  supplementary 
hypothesis  self-contradictory, 
78-80 

Jeremiah,  allusions  to  the  Pen- 
tateuch, 55,  note 

Jerome,  not  indifferent  to  Moses's 
authorship,  47  i 

Joel,  allusions  to  the  Pentateuch, 
54,  note 

Joseph  us,  canon  of,  6 

Joshua,  its  place  in  the  plan  of 
the  Old  Testament,  15 


182 


INDEX 


Judges,  allusions  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, 52,  note 
Julicher,  109,  131,  171 
Juvenal,  139,  note 

Kautzsch  und  See  in,  142,  note 
Kay,  133,  note 
Kayser,  109,  141,  note 
Keil,  50,  note,  81  and  note 
Kings,  Books  of,  allusions  to  the 

Pentateuch,  53,  note 
Knobel,  76,  77,  note 
Kouig,  142,  note 
Kuenen,  130,  131,  141  and  note, 

165,  169 
Kueper,  56,  note 
Kurtz,  81  and  note,  105 

Lamentations,  its  place  in  the 

order  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  6 
Laws,  their  language  points  to 

Moses  as  their  author,  39,  40  ; 

written  in  the  wilderness,  41 ; 

could  not  be  a  forgery,  42,  156  ; 

their  locality  significant,  42 
Le  Clerc,  49 
Legislation  in  three  localities,  25, 

26 
Leviticus,  analysis  of,  26,  27 
Literary  attractions  of  the  Bible, 

172 
Literary  critics,  their  diversities 

and  points  of  agreement,  135 

McCuRDY,  Professor,  114,  note 

Madvig,  129,  note 

Mead,  Professor,  125,  143,  note 

Merx,  141,  note 

Micah,  allusions  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, 55,  note 

Miracles  denied  or  explained 
away,  165 

Modified  document  hypothesis, 
82,  83  ;  its  difficulties,  84-87 

Moses  the  author  of  the  Penta- 


teuch, 31  ;  traditional  belief, 
sanctioned  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 32 ;  testimony  of  the 
Old  Testament,  33-35  ;  claim 
of  the  Pentateuch  itself,  36- 
39  ;  confirmed  by  the  language 
of  the  laws,  39-41  ;  allusions 
in  later  books  of  the  Bible, 
42,  43  ;  authority  in  the  Ten 
Tribes,  43 ;  elementary  char- 
acter, Egyptian  allusions,  45 
Munhall,  Dr.,  143,  note 

Negative  types,  11 

New  Testament,  its  universality, 
written  in  Greek,  1  ;  testimony 
to  Moses's  authorship,  32,  33 

Nibelungenlied,  127 

Numbers,  analysis  of,  27 

Objections  to  Moses's  author- 
ship classified,  46  ;  the  earliest, 
47 

Oehler,  9,  note 

Old  Testament  addressed  to  Is- 
rael, in  their  language,  by 
many  writers,  1  ;  its  organic 
structure,  2,  3  ;  its  testimony 
to  the  authorship  of  Moses, 
33-35 

Organic  structure  of  the  Old 
Testament,  2,  3,  9  ;  two  meth- 
ods of  investigating  it,  7  ;  ad- 
vantages of  the  second  method, 
10 ;  their  results  compared, 
15-17 

Origen,  canon  of,  6 

Osgood,  Dr.  Howard,  62,  note 

Parallel  passages  made  an  ar- 
gument for  partition,  64  ;  and 
for  contradictions,  70  ;  dis- 
cussed, 109-112 

Partition  hypotheses  futile,  yet 


INDEX 


183 


serviceable  to  the  cause  of 
truth,  132,  133 ;  elaborated  ia 
the  interest  of  unbelief,  157, 
165  ;  acceptance  by  evangelical 
scholars  does  not  neutralize 
their  pernicious  tendencies, 
166,  177 

Patriarchal  period,  20 

Pentateuch,  its  position  in  the 
plan  of  the  Old  Testament,  8, 
9,  13  ;  its  plan  and  contents, 
18  sqq.  ;  how  denominated, 
derivation  of  the  word,  antiq- 
uity of  the  quintuple  divi- 
sion, names  of  the  several 
books,  18  ;  its  theme,  two  prin- 
cipal sections,  19,  36 ;  tabu- 
lated, 30  ;  its  importance,  31  ; 
written  by  Moses,  33-46 ; 
claims  to  be  from  Moses,  36- 
39 ;  alluded  to  in  later  books 
of  the  Bible,  52-58,  note ;  its 
unity,  59  sqq.;  process  of  its 
formation  according  to  the 
critics,  159,  160 

People  of  God,  ideas  involved  in, 
21 ;  two  stages,  the  family  and 
the  nation,  24 

Perspicacity  claimed  by  the  crit- 
ics, 126,  127 

Peyrerius,  48 

Plautus,  129,  note 

Poetical  books,  their  place  in  the 
plan  of  the  Old  Testament,  8, 
9,  14 

Positive  types,  11 

Postdiluvian  period,  its  aim,  20, 
21 

Predictions  denied  or  explained 
away,  165 

Predictive  periods  negative  and 
positive,  12,  13 

Priest  code,  36, 136-140, 145, 146, 
148,  155 


Prodigal  son,  parable  of,  parti- 
tioned, 119-122 

Promises  to  the  patriarchs,  24 

Prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament, 
their  distribution,  11 

Prophetical  books,  their  place  in 
the  plan  of  the  Old  Testament, 
9,  14 

Psalms,  allusions  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, 56,  note 

Ranke,  F.  H.,  76  and  note 

Rationalistic  exegesis,  174,  175 

Redactor  proposed  by  Gramberg, 
63,  note ;  inconsistencies  im- 
puted to  him  in  Hupfeld's  hy- 
pothesis, 86,  87  ;  deals  arbitra- 
rily with  the  text,  91  sqq.,  161, 
163, 168-170  ;  his  mode  of  com- 
piling the  Pentateuch,  159, 
160  ;  not  infallibly  inspired, 
168 

Religion  of  the  Bible  based  on 
historical  facts,  165 

Rephidim,  narrative  of  the  bat- 
tle there  recorded  by  Moses, 
37,  38 

Reuss,  142,  note 

Revealed  religion  antagonized  by 
critical  hypotheses,  164  sqq. 

Revelations  of  truth  denied  or  ex- 
plained away,  165 

Robertson,  Professor  J.,  143,  note 

Romans  Dissected,  125 

Rupprecht,  142,  note 

Ruth,  its  position  in  the  order  of 
the  canon,  6,  7  ;  allusions  to 
the  Pentateuch,  52,  note 

Sacrifices  elsewhere  than  at  the 
sanctuary  and  by  others  than 
priests,  150-153 

Samaritan,  the  Good,  parable  of, 
partitioned,  122-125 


184 


INDEX 


Samaritan  Pentateuch,  44 
Samuel,  Books  of,  allusions  to 

the  Pentateuch,  53,  53,  note 
Samuel,  offering  sacrifice,   153, 

153 
Schmauk,  Professor,  143,  note 
Schrader,  83,  note 
Scriptural  statements   regarding 

the  Pentateuchal  Codes,  144- 

146 
Second  Elohist  of  Hupfeld,  83- 

85 
Segregation  of  the  chosen  race, 

20,  34 
Seth  and  his  pious  descendants, 

23 
Sime,  J.,  Esq.,  143,  note 
Simon,  Richard,  48 
Sinai,  laws  given  there,  26 
Smith,  Dr.  W.  Robertson,  143, 

note 
Spinoza,  48 
Stade,  130,  165,  171 
Staheliii,  76,  77,  note 
Station-list  attributed  to  Moses, 

its  significance,  38 
Style,  diversity   of,  as  an   argu- 
ment for  partition,  65,  66,  113 

sqq. 
Subscriptions  made  an  argument 

for  the  fragment  hypothesis,  74 
Summary  statements  followed  by 

particulars  made  a  pretext  for 

partition.  111 
Supernatural  in  the  Bible,  173  ; 

three  modes  of  getting  rid  of 

it,  174-177 
Supplement   hypothesis,    76-78; 


encumbered  with  diSiculties, 
78-80  ;  overturned  by  the  de- 
velopment hypothesis,  142,  143 

Symbols  used  in  Pentateuch  crit- 
icism, 88 

Synonyms,  no  proof  of  different 
writers,  115 

Tertullian,  63,  note 

Textual  changes  arbitrarily  made 

by  critics  destructive  of  their 

own  hypothesis,  90,  98,  99 
Titles  made  an  argument  for  the 

fragment  hypothesis,  74 
Tuch,  76,  77,  note 
Types,   negative     and    positive, 

their  distribution,  11 

Unity  of  the  Pentateuch,  59-133 

Vater,  71  and  note 

Violations  of  the  law,  no  proof 

of  its  non-existence,  150-153 
Vitringa,  61 
Vos,  Professor,  143,  note 

Warfield,  Dr.,  129 

Watts,  Professor  R.,  142,  note 
Wellhausen,  109,  113,  117,   130 

131,  141   and  note,   143,  note 

165,  169,  171 
Welte,  81  and  note 
West,  Professor,  137,  129,  note 
Wildeboer,  143,  note 
Witsius,  49 

Zahn,  a.,  143,  note 

Zenos,  Professor,  133,  note,  154 


Date  Due 

~r^J — T^t 

1 

^w; 

/ 

^-y^ 

y 

"^SSBSm. 

(j^yc^^  ii 

\'iLiif. 

^^— HHi 

)m^- 

^  ..'....l^^^^H 

b" 

r 

**» 

J'**  '    M 

l»> 

*mmmm 

ta^f't'*^^ 

\ 

^ 

The  higher  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch 

.,':,?."«',°,"J^eolog,calSem,nary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00040  1002 


....  ;^tj 


,      V-V-P/'''-,"- 


^pgffp: 


:  •'•  ■ '-•'••r-.;;T--''':f?;^''-''^ir2^^ 


::'■::,  Vi;^r,- 


v>^;^;| 


^^i^R 


^ 


